Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 285

524US1

Unit: $U85

[09-14-00 16:49:41] PAGES PGT: OPIN

240

HOHN v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

“(A) the ﬁnal order in a habeas corpus proceeding in
which the detention complained of arises out of process
issued by a State court; or

“(B) the ﬁnal order in a proceeding under section
28 U. S. C. § 2253(c)(1) (1994 ed., Supp. II).

2255.”

Certiﬁcates of appealability may issue “only if the applicant
has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitu-
tional right.”

§ 2253(c)(2).

Hohn ﬁled a notice of appeal on July 29, 1996, three months
after AEDPA’s enactment. The Court of Appeals treated
the notice of appeal as an application for a certiﬁcate of ap-
pealability and referred it to a three-judge panel. The panel
decided Hohn’s application did not meet the standard for a
§ 2253(c) certiﬁcate.
In the panel’s view, “Bailey did no
more than interpret a statute, and an incorrect application
of a statute by a district court, or any other court, does not
99 F. 3d 892, 893 (CA8 1996).
violate the Constitution.”
Given this determination, the panel declined to issue a cer-
tiﬁcate of appealability.

Judge McMillian dissented.

In his view, Bailey cast
doubt on whether Hohn’s conduct in fact violated 18 U. S. C.
§ 924(c)(1). The Due Process Clause, he reasoned, does not
“tolerat[e] convictions for conduct that was never criminal,”
so Hohn had made a sufﬁcient showing of a constitutional
deprivation.
99 F. 3d, at 895. When the Court of Appeals
denied Hohn’s rehearing petition and a suggestion for re-
hearing en banc, four judges noted they would have granted
the suggestion.

Hohn petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari to re-
view the denial of the certiﬁcate, seeking to invoke our juris-
diction under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1). The Government now
found itself in agreement with Hohn, saying his claim was,
in fact, constitutional in nature.
It asked us to vacate the
judgment and remand so the Court of Appeals could recon-
sider in light of this concession. We may not vacate and
remand, of course, unless we ﬁrst have jurisdiction over the