Candelaria v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court refused to hear Candelaria's case, leaving the Eleventh Circuit's ruling in place without deciding the recklessness question.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 18, 2020
- What it’s about
- Candelaria asked whether an offense that can be committed recklessly qualifies as a “crime of violence” under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)’s physical-force clause, which can trigger additional penalties for using or carrying a firearm.
- Who it affects
- The Eleventh Circuit's ruling remains in place for Candelaria, while the Supreme Court's order did not resolve whether recklessness satisfies the physical-force clause.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court denied review, leaving the Eleventh Circuit’s ruling in place.
The dispute arose under a federal law that can trigger additional penalties for using or carrying a firearm when the offense is a crime of violence.
Question presented
Whether the “use of physical force” clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(A) encompasses offenses that can be committed with a mens rea of recklessness?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
The Supreme Court has finished this docket action. The Eleventh Circuit's ruling remains in place for this case.
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
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.