ENRIQUE VINALES, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES.

U.S. | 2015-06-30
No. 14–7347.
135 S. Ct. 2928 Supreme Court of the United States (2015) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 192 L. Ed. 2d 960
Cited by 3 cases

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Synopsis

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded Enrique Vinales's case to the Eleventh Circuit for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States, which held that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act's definition of "violent felony" was unconstitutionally vague. The Court's action did not indicate whether Vinales would be entitled to relief on remand, leaving that determination to the Court of Appeals.

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Opinion of the Court

On petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperisand petition for writ of certiorari granted. Judgment vacated, and case remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit for further consideration in light of Johnson v. United States,576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2551, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2015).

Justice ALITOconcurring in the decision to grant, vacate, and remand in this case: Following the recommendation of the Solicitor General, the Court has held the petition in this and many other cases pending the decision in Johnson v. United States,576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2551, --- L.Ed.2d ---- (2015). In holding this petition and now in vacating and remanding the decision below in this case, the Court has not differentiated between cases in which the petitioner would be entitled to relief if the Court held (as it now has) that the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is void for vagueness and cases in which relief would not be warranted for a procedural reason. On remand, the Court of Appeals should understand that the Court's disposition of this petition does not reflect any view regarding petitioner's entitlement to relief.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Beckles v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 886 (U.S. 2017)
    …nconstitutionally vague. 576 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2563. We subsequently granted his petition, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remanded for further consideration in light of Johnson . Beckles v. United States, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2928, 192 L.Ed.2d 973 (2015). On remand, petitioner argued that his enhanced sentence was based on § 4B1.2(a)'s residual clause, which he contended was unconstitutionally vague under Johnson . The Court of Appeals again affirmed. It noted that petition…
  • In re Anderson, 829 F.3d 1290 (11th Cir. 2016)
    …833, 833 (11th Cir. 2014), Mr. Beckles took his case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted his petition for certiorari, summarily vacated our ruling, and told us to redo the case in light of Johnson. See Beckles v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2928, 192 L.Ed.2d 973 (2015). A year after our first decision, our court upheld Mr. Beckles’s sentence again, this time by holding that Johnson’s vagueness analysis does not apply to invalidate USSG § 4B1.2. See Beckles v. United States, 616 Fed.Appx.…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw