Castaneda v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court declined review, so it did not decide the Armed Career Criminal Act question.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 4, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Court held that, when deciding whether a prior state drug conviction qualifies as a predicate offense under the Armed Career Criminal Act, courts compare the state law with the federal controlled-substances schedules in effect when the state offense occurred.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Supreme Court review of Castaneda’s petition without deciding which drug-list version applies to his case.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The United States therefore prevailed.
The record refers to a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed within one year of Johnson v. United States. Castaneda also filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit case.
The dispute involved whether an earlier state drug conviction could count in a federal firearm case under the Armed Career Criminal Act.
Question presented
Whether the “categorical approach” to the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e), requires a court to look to the version of the federal controlled-substances schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearm offense, or the version in effect at the time of the prior state drug conviction?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court’s action in this case is complete; no further Supreme Court ruling on this question is shown.
Documents
Opinions
Key filings
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
Show 7 moreShow fewer
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
New analysis added
More questions
- What request accompanied Castaneda’s petition?
- The filing included a request to proceed without paying filing fees.
- What motion was part of the case?
- The record identifies a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 filed within one year of Johnson v. United States.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.