Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 287

524US1

Unit: $U85

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

242

HOHN v. UNITED STATES

Opinion of the Court

tiﬁcate is his or her own action, rather than the action of the
court of appeals to whom the judge is appointed.

The course of events here illustrates the point. The appli-
cation moved through the Eighth Circuit in the same manner
as cases in general do. The matter was entered on the
docket of the Court of Appeals, submitted to a panel, and
decided in a published opinion, including a dissent. App.
4–5. The court entered judgment on it, issued a mandate,
and entertained a petition for rehearing and suggestion for
rehearing en banc.
Id., at 5–6. The Eighth Circuit has
since acknowledged its rejection of Hohn’s application made
Circuit law. United States v. Apker, 101 F. 3d 75 (CA8
1996), cert. pending, No. 97–5460. One judge speciﬁcally
indicated he was bound by the decision even though he
believed it was wrongly decided.
101 F. 3d, at 75–76 (Hen-
ley, J., concurring in result). These factors suggest Hohn’s
certiﬁcate application was as much a case in the Court of
Appeals as are the other matters decided by it.

We also draw guidance from the fact that every Court of
Appeals except the Court of Appeals for the District of Co-
lumbia Circuit has adopted Rules to govern the disposition
of certiﬁcate applications. E. g., Rules 22, 22.1 (CA1 1998);
Rules 22, 27(b) and (f) (CA2 1998); Rules 3.4, 22.1, 111.3(b)
and (c), 111.4(a) and (b)(vii) (CA3 1998); Rules 22(a) and
(b)(3)(g), 34(b) (CA4 1998); Rules 8.1(g), 8.6, 8.10, 22, 27.2.3
(CA5 1998); Rules 28(f), (g), and ( j) (CA6 1998); Rules
22(a)(2), (h)(2), and (h)(3)(i), 22.1 (CA7 1998); Rules 22A(d),
27B(b)(2) and (c)(2) (CA8 1998); Rules 3–1(b), 22–2, 22–3(a)(3)
and (b)(4), 22–4(c), 22–5(c), (d)(1), (d)(3), and (e) (CA9 1998);
Rules 11.2(b), 22.1, 22.2.3 (CA10 1998); Rules 22–1, 22–3(a)(3),
(a)(4), (a)(6), and (a)(7), and (b), 27–1(d)(3) (CA11 1998). We
also note the Internal Operating Procedures for the Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit require certiﬁcate applica-
tions to be heard as a general matter by three-judge admin-
istrative panels.
Internal Operating Procedures, pt. I.D.3
(1998); see also Interim Processing Guidelines for Certiﬁ-