United States v. Smith

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

Smith also cites United States v. Jones, 965 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2020) as a case that “reversed a sentence,” Smith’s Br. at 2, but Jones both did not involve challenges to the sentence and affirmed the defendant’s conviction, 965 F.3d at 153. In his reply brief, Jones cites “United States v. Johnson, 605 F.3d 728, 731 (7th Cir. 2010),” for the proposition that prosecutorial exaggeration is improper. Smith’s Reply Br. at 15. But Johnson does not appear to exist. Smith also references United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2009), for the proposition that a miscalculated guidelines range “infects the entire sentencing process.” Smith’s Reply Br. at 15. Abbas is a real case and discusses sentencing, but it lacks the quote that Smith attributes to the decision. ... One concern remains: potential sanctions against Smith for submitting false citations and quotations. By the Court’s count, Smith falsified entire cases or quotations nearly a dozen times. Falsifying information “undermines the most basic foundations of our judicial system” and “imposes unjust burdens on the opposing party, the judiciary, and honest litigants.” ... So the Court issues a rule for Smith to show cause why he should not be subject to monetary sanctions for the fabricated legal citations. Smith’s response is due on or before September 4, 2026.

Authorities cited in the passage: United States v. Aviles-Colon, 536 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2008) · United States v. Jones, 965 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2020) · United States v. Johnson, 605 F.3d 728 (7th Cir. 2010) · United States v. Abbas, 560 F.3d 660 (7th Cir. 2009) · Secrease v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Co., 800 F.3d 397 (7th Cir. 2015) · Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · Alexander v. United States, 121 F.3d 312 (7th Cir. 1997) · Smith v. Gilmore, 111 F.3d 55 (7th Cir. 1997)