Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 canonical passages across 6 cases, quoted by 82 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from Apprendi v. New Jersey.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Apprendi v. New Jersey Anchor | green | “if the government seeks enhanced penalties based on the amount of drugs under 21 u.s.c. 841 (b)(1)(a) or (b), the quantity must be stated in the indictment and submitted to a jury for a finding of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” | 29 |
| 2 | United States v. Marion Promise, A/K/A Mario,defendant-Appellant | green | “apprendi dictates that in order to authorize the imposition of a sentence exceeding the maximum allowable without a jury finding of a specific threshold drug quantity, the specific threshold quantity must be treated as an element of an aggravated drug trafficking offense, i.e., …” | 26 |
| 3 | United States v. Daniel J. Fern | green | “if an indictment specifically refers to the statute on which the charge was based, the reference to the statutory language adequately informs the defendant of the charge.” | 14 |
| 4 | United States v. Jose Manuel Candelario | green | “constitutional objection for apprendi purposes is timely if a defendant makes the objection at sentencing.” | 5 |
| 5 | United States v. Moore | green | “court must be satisfied that the waiver was knowingly, understandingly, and voluntarily made.” | 4 |
| 6 | United States v. Hoang Van Tran, and Vicheth Som | red | “to the extent that mojica-baez can be read to conclude that this type of error is not jurisdictional, we reject that conclusion here.” | 4 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.