4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 45 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 United States v. Pepper.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Pepper Anchor | green | “we review all sentences, whether inside or outside the guidelines range, under a deferential abuse of discretion standard.” | 20 |
| 2 | United States v. Kowal | green | “fails to consider a relevant factor that should have received significant weight, gives significant weight to an improper or irrelevant factor, or considers only the appropriate factors but commits a clear error of judgment in weighing those factors.” | 12 |
| 3 | United States v. Blankenship | green | “we review the district court's factual findings for clear error, and its application of the guidelines de novo.” | 10 |
| 4 | United States v. Pepper | green | “evidence of a defendant's post-sentence rehabilitation is not relevant and will not be permitted at resentencing because the district court could not have considered that evidence at the time of the original sentencing.” | 3 |
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.