Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/524bv.pdf
Page Number: 281

524US1

Unit: $U85

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

236

OCTOBER TERM, 1997

Syllabus

HOHN v. UNITED STATES

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for
the eighth circuit

No. 96–8986. Argued March 3, 1998—Decided June 15, 1998

Petitioner Hohn ﬁled a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 to vacate his convic-
tion for “use” of a ﬁrearm during a drug trafﬁcking offense, 18 U. S. C.
§ 924(c)(1), claiming the evidence was insufﬁcient to prove such “use”
under this Court’s intervening decision in Bailey v. United States, 516
U. S. 137. While the motion was pending, Congress enacted the Anti-
terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, § 102 of which
amends the statutory provision which had required state prisoners to
obtain a certiﬁcate of probable cause before appealing the denial of a
habeas petition. The amended provision speciﬁes, inter alia, that an
appeal may not be taken to a court of appeals from the ﬁnal order in a
§ 2255 proceeding, § 2253(c)(1)(B), unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certiﬁcate of appealability, § 2253(c)(1), upon a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right, § 2253(c)(2). The District Court de-
nied Hohn’s motion, and he ﬁled a notice of appeal, which the Eighth
Circuit treated as an application for a certiﬁcate of appealability. A
three-judge panel declined to issue a certiﬁcate, ruling that Hohn did
In the panel’s view, Bailey simply interpreted
not satisfy § 2253(c)(2).
§ 924(c)(1), and a district court’s incorrect application of a statute does
not violate the Constitution. Hohn then petitioned for review of the
certiﬁcate denial under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1), which provides in relevant
part that “[c]ases in the courts of appeals may be reviewed by the Su-
preme Court” “[b]y writ of certiorari.” The Government now says that
Hohn’s claim was, in fact, constitutional in nature and asks the Court to
vacate the judgment and remand so the Eighth Circuit can reconsider
in light of this concession. Since both parties argue that this Court has
jurisdiction, an amicus curiae was appointed to argue the contrary
position.

Held: This Court has jurisdiction under § 1254(1) to review denials of ap-
plications for certiﬁcates of appealability by a circuit judge or a court of
appeals panel. Hohn’s certiﬁcate application is a “case in” the Court of
Appeals under § 1254(1) because the word “case,” as used in a statute,
means a court proceeding, suit, or action, Blyew v. United States, 13
Wall. 581, 595; the dispute here is a proceeding seeking relief for an
immediate and redressable injury, i. e., wrongful detention in violation
of the Constitution; and there is adversity as well as the other requisite