Document: 524 U.S. 236118 S.Ct. 1969141 L.Ed.2d 242 Arnold F. HOHN, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 96-8986. Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 3, 1998. Decided June 15, Syllabus * Petitioner Hohn filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. §2255 to vacate his conviction for "use'' firearm during drug trafficking offense, 18 §924(c)(1), claiming evidence was insufficient prove such this Court's intervening decision in Bailey v. States, 516 137, 116 501, 133 472. While pending, Congress enacted Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996, §102 which amends statutory provision had required state prisoners obtain certificate probable cause before appealing denial habeas petition. The amended specifies, inter alia, that an appeal may not be taken court appeals from final order proceeding, §2253(c)(1)(B), unless circuit justice or judge issues appealability, §2253(c)(1), upon substantial showing constitutional right, §2253(c)(2). District denied Hohn's motion, he notice appeal, Eighth Circuit treated as application appealability. A three-judge panel declined issue certificate, ruling did satisfy In panel's view, simply interpreted district court's incorrect statute does violate Constitution. then petitioned review §1254(1), provides relevant part " [c]ases courts reviewed by Court'' [b]y writ certiorari.'' Government now says claim was, fact, nature asks judgment remand so can reconsider light concession. Since both parties argue has jurisdiction, amicus curiae appointed contrary position. Held: This jurisdiction §1254(1) denials applications certificates appealability panel. is "case in'' Appeals because word "case,'' used statute, means suit, action, Blyew 13 Wall. 581, 595, 20 L.Ed. 638; dispute here proceeding seeking relief immediate redressable injury, i.e., wrongful detention violation Constitution; there adversity well other requisite qualities "case.'' That §2253(c)(1) permits issued "circuit judge'' mean judge's her own rather than court's. fact moved through same manner cases general do, yielding been regarded precedential, suggests much case any matter. conclusion also confirmed adoption every but one rules governing disposition applications; issuance denying name its seal; Federal Rule Appellate Procedure 22(b), specifically consideration entire appeals; 27(c), authorizes decisions individual judges are authorized make on their own; 27B(b)(2), lists grants reviewable 27(c); uniform practice appeals, see re Burwell, 350 521, 522, 76 539, 540, 100 666. Early acknowledging federal actions performed administrative, opposed judicial, capacity, see, e.g., Ferreira, How. 40, 51-52, 14 inapposite judicial nature. contention dissent Court-appointed failure threshold prerequisite prevents ever being "in'' foreclosed precedent. See, Ex parte Quirin, 317 1, 24, 63 2, 9, 87 3; Nixon Fitzgerald, 457 731, 742-743, n. 23, 102 2690, 2697-2698, 73 349; Automobile Workers Scofield, 382 205, 208-209, 86 373, 376-377, 15 272. argument refuted recent amendment §2244(b)(3)(E) barring certiorari motions file second successive applications, would have superfluous were purposes, Kawaauhau Geiger, 523 ----, 118 974, ---- contrasts tellingly with absence analogous limitation Bates 522 285, 139 215. Today's holding conforms commonsense scheme, making it unnecessary invoke extraordinary routine cases, present important meritorious claims Hohn's. Although directly conflicts portion House Mayo, 324 42, 48, 65 517, 89 739 (per curiam), lacks cause, stare decisis require adherence erroneous conclusion, hereby overruled. Eight Circuit's vacated Solicitor General's position Court. Pp. ____-____. 99 F.3d 892, remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered opinion Court, STEVENS, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, JJ., joined. concurring opinion. SCALIA, dissenting opinion, REHNQUIST, C. O'CONNOR THOMAS, Eileen Penner, Washington, DC, petitioner. Matthew D. Roberts, respondent. Jeffrey S. Sutton, special leave Justice KENNEDY 1 We granted determine whether we hold, jurisdiction. 2 1992, petitioner charged number drug-related offenses, including use carrying relation §924(c)(1). Over defense counsel's objection, instructed jury meant having "available aid commission of'' offense. App. 7, 32. convicted all counts. challenge instruction direct affirmed. 8 1301 (C.A.8 1993). 3 Two years after became final, held term §924(c)(1) active employment firearm. Proximity accessibility alone sufficient. 472 (1995). pro se grounds presented at trial conceded given comply Bailey, because, waived failing appeal. 4 pending 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. Section AEDPA provides: 5 "Unless from- 6 (A) corpus complained arises out process State court; 7 (B) section 2255.'' U.S.C.A. (Supp.1998). Certificates "only if applicant made right.'' 9 July 29, three months AEDPA's enactment. referred decided meet standard §2253(c) certificate. "Bailey no more interpret court, Constitution.'' 893 1996). Given determination, 10 Judge McMillian dissented. cast doubt conduct violated Due Process Clause, reasoned, "tolerat[e] convictions never criminal,'' sufficient deprivation. F.3d, 895. When rehearing petition suggestion en banc, four noted they suggestion. 11 our §1254(1). found itself agreement Hohn, saying It asked us could remand, course, first over case; since favor II 12 Title §1254 most often invoked part: "Cases following methods: (1) By party civil criminal case, rendition decree . .'' phrase quoted confines appeals. 741-742, 2697, 349 (1982). question meets description. 16 There little constitutes As noted, [t]he words "case' "cause' constantly synonyms statutes , each meaning action.'' 638 (1871). entitlement falls within definition. "case'' Article III Constitution consideration. significant, think, addressed ordinary course process, and, rule, when applicable requirements finality satisfied, next step action whom appointed. 17 events illustrates point. do. matter entered docket Appeals, submitted panel, published dissent. 4-5. it, mandate, entertained banc. Id., 5-6. acknowledged rejection law. Apker, 101 75 1996), cert. 97-5460. One indicated bound even though believed wrongly decided. 75-76 (Henley, result). These factors suggest matters it. draw guidance except Columbia adopted Rules govern applications. E.g., 22, 22.1 (CA1 1998); 27(b) (f) (CA2 3.4, 22.1, 111.3(b) (c), 111.4(a) (b)(vii) (CA3 22(a) (b)(3)(g), 34(b) (CA4 8.1(g), 8.6, 8.10, 27.2.3 (CA5 28(f), (g), (j) (CA6 22(a)(2), (h)(2), (h)(3)(i), (CA7 22A(d), 27B(b)(2) (c)(2) (CA8 3-1(b), 22-2, 22-3(a)(3) (b)(4), 22-4(c), 22-5(c), (d)(1), (d)(3), (e) (CA9 11.2(b), 22.2.3 (CA10 22-1, 22-3(a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(7), (b), 27-1(d)(3) (CA11 1998). note Internal Operating Procedures heard administrative panels. Procedures, pt. I.D.3 Interim Processing Guidelines Appealability §2253 Motions §2244, I(CA1), U.S.C.A., p. 135 (1998 Pamphlet); 10.3.2, 15.1 Criminal Implementation Plan, I. 2(CA4), 576 1(a)(1) (c)(7) 27-1, Advisory Committee Note (1)(CA9), 290 Emergency General Order Regarding Prison Litigation Reform (CA10), 487 11, 47-6 directives meaningless subject control 19 true President appoints several circuits,'' §44, "consist[s] regular service,'' §43. instance, aware, seal. should be, character consequences respect continuing Appeals. specific court. 22(b) states: 21 "In proceed pursuant 2253(c) title 28, Code If request judge. shall deemed thereof considered deems appropriate. express filed, constitute appeals.'' 22 On face, applies only state, federal, prisoners. nonetheless instructive proper construction §2253(c). 23 prohibits judge, nor language statute. incongruity, nevertheless, instance acting ex curia depending caption style order. 24 Our further 27(c). 25 addition authority expressly conferred these law, single entertain grant deny properly sought dismiss otherwise provide rule class must acted court.'' 26 makes clear, certain requests relief, decisions. explicit, listing revision recognition remain correction reinforces determination regard reject contained Notes "28 authorize cause.'' U.S.C.App., 609. consistent construe conferring See 666 (1956). 27 Some early distinction between capacity. perform functions, review. 40 (1851); Gordon 117 U.S.Appx. 697, 702, 704 (1864). Those opinions careful say nonjudicial judges' deprived supra, 46-47 (tribunal proceedings involve summoning witnesses, entry judgment); Gordon, 699, 702 power enter enforce judgments). Decisions regarding contrast, typical appearances submit briefs appropriate times mandate end proceedings, happened here. 4-6. Construing function, moreover, entity wielding might questions surround arrangement, supra; Hayburn's Case, Dall. 409 (1792), avoid implication. disagree contention, advanced amicus, inquiry separate merits which, denied, Precedent forecloses argument. (1942), confronted purposes then-extant §225(a) First (1940 ed.) (courts [i]n courts, save where Court''). constituted assert request. [p]resentation institution suit. Hence petitions causes controversy, Appeals.'' U.S., S.Ct., 9. 29 reached similar Fitzgerald. interlocutory rejecting absolute immunity. summarily dismissed failed "serious unsettled question'' law bring collateral doctrine announced Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541, 547, 69 1221, 1226, 93 1528 (1949). Because jurisdictional requirement, respondent Fitzgerald argued, "the appealable "in' §1254.'' 742, 2697. Turning aside argument, ruled "petitioner unsettled' therefore follow[ed] jurisdiction.'' 743, 2698. elaborated: "There serious concerning appeals' lack lacked do so, want insulated entirely Court.'' 2698; Nixon, 418 683, 692, 94 3090, 3099-3100, 41 1039 (1974) (holding quash subpoena duces tecum §1254(1)). 30 shown doubts about dismissals Courts timely filing mandatory jurisdictional. Torres Oakland Scavenger Co., 312, 315, 108 2405, 2407, 285 (1988); Robinson, 361 220, 224, 80 282, 285-286, 259 (1960); Committee's Fed. Proc. 589. kept entering however. without insisting suggesting so. Houston Lack, 266, 2379, 245 Torres, Fallen 378 139, 84 1689, 760 (1964); Leishman Associated Wholesale Elec. 318 203, 543, 714 (1943). 31 intervene agency. 272 (1965); Izumi Seimitsu Kogyo Kabushiki Kaisha Philips 510 27, 30, 114 425, 426, 126 396 (1993) curiam). Together foreclose proposition 32 difference oppose gave Appeals' despite neither agency intervention. 207, 375-376. manner, met silence acquiescence; yet deprives needed case. Assuming, underlying satisfies requisites injury circumstance preliminary issue, venue, oust appellate For remedy particular dismissal improper venue resolution merits. Civil 12(b)(3) move joining substantive point responsive pleading, long Radzanower Touche Ross & 426 148, 151, 96 1989, 1991-1992, 48 540 (1976); Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 706, 707, 92 1936, 1937, 428 (1972); Schnell Peter Eckrich Sons, 365 260, 261, 81 557, 558-559, 546 (1961); Fourco Glass Co. Transmirra Products 353 222, 223, 77 787, 788-789, 786 (1957); Mississippi Publishing Corp. Murphree, 326 438, 440, 66 242, 243-244, 90 185 (1946). granted, venue. problem those however, Lauro Lines s.r.l. Chasser, 490 495, 109 1976, 104 548 (1989); Van Cauwenberghe Biard, 486 1945, 517 (1988). event, concerns misplaced Here appearance response initial opposing 4, 5. 33 inquiries §2244(b)(3). requires §2254 "move authorizing consider application.'' §2244(b)(3)(A) authorization §2244(b)(3)(E). include reluctant adopt another superfluous. --- (1998) (slip op., 5); Menasche, 348 528, 538-539, 513, 519-520, 615 (1955). 34 Inclusion reason. clear limit True, refers "by appeals''; still, think concerned enough bar just explicit other, intention. 287, 215 (1997) (""[W]here includes omits Act, generally presumed acts intentionally purposely disparate inclusion exclusion''') (quoting Russello 464 16, 296, 300, 78 (1983) (other internal quotation marks omitted)). explained Congress' reliance unreviewable Post, __. later discuss, lessened treating falling infra, __-__. 35 claims. considerable merit acknowledges committed error magnitude. contested one. Brief Opposition 7-8. Were dissent, way All Writs §1651(a). carry normal function reviewing possible misapplications resort remedies. 36 decision, acknowledge, conflict 44, 519, (1945) refusals cause. frequency difficulty reconciling requirement address them, adhere decision. Its erroneous, followed. 37 Stare preferred promotes evenhanded, predictable, development legal principles, fosters decisions, contributes actual perceived integrity process.'' Payne Tennessee, 501 808, 827, 111 2597, 2609, 115 720 (1991). "Considerations force area interpretation, here, unlike context legislative implicated, remains free alter what done.'' Patterson McLean Credit Union, 491 164, 172-173, 2363, 2370, 105 132 (1989). 38 recognized, "principle policy'' "an inexorable command.'' Payne, 828, 2609. example, felt less constrained follow precedent where, rendered full briefing Gray Mississippi, 481 648, 651, 107 2045, 2047, 95 622 (1987) (questioning precedential value Davis Georgia, 429 122, 97 399, 50 339 (1976) curiam)). role decisis, furthermore, "somewhat reduced procedural serve guide lawful behavior.'' Gaudin, 515 506, 2310, 2319, 444 (1995) (citing 2609-2611). procedure primary conduct. And more, Mayo disregarded practice. Both cite numerous instances writs requiring writ, previously rules, exhibiting Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, Edward H. Cooper, Practice §4036, pp. 15-16 (2d ed. 1988) (collecting cases). Included among examples noteworthy resolved significant Allen Hardy, 478 255, 257-258, 106 2878, 2879-2880, 199 (1986) curiam) (refusing permit retroactive Batson Kentucky, 476 79, 1712, (1986), attack); Lynce Mathis, 519 433, 436, 891, 893, 137 cancellation release credits Post Facto Clause). deviations led litigants community vitality Mayo. commentator observed: "More regularly forma pauperis, refusal certify indication common certiorari. At least two questions, available.'' (footnotes omitted). frequent disregard weakens placed especially commentary literature. 39 passing sub silentio said overruled addressing directly. More, Cranch 159, 172, 397 (1805) (Marshall, J.). binding until fit regardless subsequent raised vitality. Rodriguez de Quijas Shearson/American Express, 477, 484, 1917, 1921-1922, 526 Once remiss consistency applied Swift Wickham, 111, 116, 258, 261-262, 194 Brown Shoe 370 294, 307, 82 1502, 1513-1514, (1962). consideration, combined analysis question, convinces cannot stand. hold asserted brief August 18, 1997, remanded ordered. 42 concurring. 43 I content decide common-law available leaving House's precarious future day faced squarely. But command minority one, good reason support. appeals,'' id., virtually unreasoned, correctly notes honoring breach. weakness precedent, advantage majority reverse persuades me join others overruling insofar bear 44 THE CHIEF JUSTICE, O'CONNOR, THOMAS join, dissenting. 45 Congress, unmistakable clarity, To reach result, ignores obvious intent Pub.L. 104-132, 1214, distorts overrules 53-year-old respectfully 46 limited [u]nless 2255,'' is, challenging custody. Petitioner, who custody §2255, (COA). plain AEDPA, "from'' "final order'' "may quite obviously Appeals; 47 already squarely explicitly endorsed straightforward interpretation. involving predecessors §§1254(1) 2253(c)(1), statutorily called "certificate cause'' effect precisely same: attempt petitioner's certificate,'' Ibid. concedes opts overrule "conclusion erroneous,'' ante, instead based COA itself, __-__, hence Most expended effort establish such, ibid. Even unsuccessful, comes up against pellucid contrary. states judge.'' underscored §103 Procedure: "If [a COA] appropriate.'' drafted anticipatory refutation countertextual today, 49 Proclaiming distortions, consequences. latter award goes unanalyzed pronouncement (also essential holding) notion pertaining jaw-dropper. support remarkable assertion, relies circumstantial evidence-that "application do.'' Ante, Does Circuits differently-that permitted disposed allows? recusal, televised coverage, seal chose treat here? Surely not. An COA, standing alone, known grievance anyone, seek redress "party'' side. nothing permission Petitioner's unlawful custody, seeks §2255. some subsist apart suit; merely fulfilled action-his "cause''-can advance §1254, ibid., satisfied granted-any controversy'' federal-court created agree everything else.1 51 theories, logical reasoning yields strange results. propriety granting creates unopposed (or, better yet, supported government) will unreviewable, whereas vigorously reviewed-surely upside-down result. suit mooted prison. bizarre inevitably "separate case'' theory, fabricated achieve result fundamentally odds purpose insists assuming, import wanted "in process'' "general rule'' order, Congress's wish, need AEDPA. whole diverge keep obtains COA. "The screening device, helping conserve (and prosecutorial) resources.'' Young 124 794, 799 (C.A.7 1997). unique distinguishes discussed Court: determinations (even defects), Rosado Wyman, 397, 403, 1207, 1213, 442 (1970) (a always jurisdiction). 52 arguments (1942). (The displays appreciation delicious irony involved insistence hewing allegedly while point, House.) Quirin necessary controversy. relied Milligan, 110-113, 281 (1866), reasoned ""that affords him''' recover liberty. 113 Weston City Council Charleston, Pet. 449, 464, (1829)). corpus, wholly different "remedy'' harm, stage. why House, recognize hearing call return. 43, 519. 53 described above correct, few inappropriateness virtue original [T]he burden borne advocating abandonment established greater construction.'' Illinois Brick Illinois, 431 720, 736, 2061, 2069-2070, 707 (1977); Burnet Coronado Oil Gas 393, 406, 443, 447, 815 (1932) (Brandeis, dissenting). principle, invokes ours ""somewhat reduced,''' rule. basis ordinarily engender detrimental reliance-and self-evident. cited applying reduced'' holdings still set forth justifying overruling. (1995), concluded proved manifestly underpinnings eroded, Court''; 828-830, 2609-2611, (1991), "decided narrowest margins, spirited dissents [their] basic underpinnings,'' "questioned Members decisions,'' "defied lower courts.'' 54 excuse sole cites (1987). Gray, argument-it accorded effect. 666-667, 2055-2056. What mere dictum, dictum footnote, that), "summary argument.'' 2047 1. Edelman Jordan, 415 1347, 662 (1974), give effect, judgments -"summary affirmances'' "contain discussion'' 670-671, 1359-1360. Such judgments, affirming comment appealed from, days extensive jurisdiction; carried weight six-page discussion reasoned: "Our extends ''' (2) "Here (3) "want 519.2 Ferguson Columbia, 270 633, 355, 70 771 (1926). new today announces-that (hitherto thought strongest certainty outcome) diminished effect-may turn principal remembered. expected affect treatment many per curiam willingness Justices undertake summary future. 55 Of accepts alludes (procedural plus argument) reduce acknowledge increased holding. contend utterly inapplicable, come ignoring "disregarded'' proposition, fail mention House; pertains. "we repeatedly existence unaddressed defects '' Lewis Casey, 518 343, 352, 2174, 2180, 606 (1996) (emphasis added). "precedential effect'' holdings. denial, agreed §1254. Jacobs, 454 911, 912, 417, 417-418, 226 (1981) (STEVENS, respecting certiorari); 916-917, 420-421 (REHNQUIST, joined Burger, C.J., Powell, dissenting); Jeffries Barksdale, 453 914, 915-916, 3149, 3150, 998 approach perhaps 56 scant according it: unrepudiated central scheme creating. continues tradition provisions petitions. 1908, lie Mar. 10, ch. 76, 40. 1925, extended intermediate Feb. 13, 229, §§6(d), 940, 942. Before readily brought Bilik Strassheim, 212 551, 684, 649 (1908); Patrick, 555, 686, 650 (1908), 1925 produce consequently, predecessor Quite obviously, books-neither it-Congress presumably anticipated manner.3 striking departure practice, qualifies extant Keene 508 200, 212, 2035, 2042-2043, (1993): says, commentators "question vitality'' confusion introduced obvious. 57 bottom, justification holding-and prompts concurrence -is convenience: "permits function'' "normal'' review, is. Const., Art. III, §2. defiance evident display "common sense,'' __, willfulness. suspended five find inconvenient (or indeed, suggests, search fifth) all, adhering like abandoning 58 Government's §1651. [its] jurisdictio[n] agreeable usages principles law.'' 20.1, §1651 "is discretion sparingly exercised,'' [t]o justify show exceptional circumstances warrant exercise discretionary powers, adequate obtained form 59 (who Cert. 1) requirements. begin with, unobtainable differs gatekeeping crucial respect: decided, claimants §466 ed.), COA's justice, "necessary.'' 60 Relief "appropriate.'' alleged erroneously question. "exceptional'' claim; entertaining render "extraordinary'' routine. Issuance "appropriate'' well: frustrate prevent granted. "Where addresses hand, authority, controlling. empowers fashion remedies arises, them ad hoc whenever compliance procedures appears Pennsylvania Bureau Correction Marshals Service, 474 34, 361, 88 189 (1985).4 61 obscure. eliminate interminable delays execution sentences, shameful overloading system, produced various aspects jurisprudence. obscure: designed, intelligent litigation finds reasonable giving literally unprecedented statutes, premise enactment, adds new, Byzantine detail streamline simplify. syllabus prepared Reporter convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 499. this. observation preliminary, accurate irrelevant. isolation part. not, dispute, alone-like alone-lacks asserts "virtually unreasoned.'' seems me, contrary, said. Not anyone consist disembodied joins relying truly eccentric blames discussing eccentricity length. points prisoner "shall §2244(b)(3) provision, "superfluous'' followed 2244(b)(3) district-court Only covered House. result; specification accurately cautious Indeed, relevance this: exceedingly intervention, does, demonstrated "necessary'' §1651, discuss fails ***

Category: 0