JASON CASTLE, PETITIONER,
v.
UNITED STATES.

U.S. | 2015-06-30
No. 14–9108.
135 S. Ct. 2941 Supreme Court of the United States (2015) Positive Treatment
Also reported at: 192 L. Ed. 2d 969
Cited by 6 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 Jason Castle's conviction to the Sixth Circuit for reconsideration in light of Johnson v. United States, which invalidated the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act as unconstitutionally vague. The Court's action did not indicate whether Castle was entitled to relief on the merits, leaving that determination to the appellate court on remand.


© 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 Sixth 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 Sixth 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

  • Bucklew v. Anne L. Precythe, 139 S. Ct. 1112 (U.S. 2019)
    …eal. Bucklew v. Lombardi , 572 U.S. 1131, 134 S.Ct. 2333, 189 L.Ed.2d 206 (2014). Ultimately, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenge. Zink v. Lombardi , 783 F.3d 1089 (en banc) (per curiam ), cert. denied, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2941, 192 L.Ed.2d 976 (2015). Then, turning to the as-applied challenge and seeking to apply the test set forth by the Baze plurality, the court held that Mr. Bucklew's complaint failed as a matter of law to identify an alternative procedure that would…
  • …asserts, and the two other circuit courts of appeal that have faced similar challenges to this kind of state secrecy law have each squarely rejected the claim twice. See Zink v. Lombardi, 783 F. 3d 1089, 1109 (8th Cir.2015), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2941, 192 L.Ed.2d 976 (2015) (‘We agree with the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits that the Constitution does not require such disclosure. A prisoner’s ‘assertion of necessity — that [the State] must disclose its protocol so he can challenge its conformity wit…
  • …w asserts, and the two other circuit courts of appeal that have faced similar challenges to this kind of state secrecy law have each squarely rejected the claim twice. See Zink v. Lombardi, 783 F. 3d 1089, 1109 (8th Cir.2015), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 135 S.Ct. 2941, 192 L.Ed.2d 976 (2015) (“We agree with the Eleventh and Fifth Circuits that the Constitution does not require such disclosure. A prisoner’s ‘assertion of necessity — that [the State] must disclose its protocol so he can challenge its conformity wit…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw