Vance v. United States
In brief
The Supreme Court declined to hear Vance's case (denied review), left the Sixth Circuit's decision in place, and did not decide the ACCA question.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided · May 26, 2020
- What it’s about
- The Supreme Court denied Adam Vance’s petition for review, leaving in place the Sixth Circuit’s decision affirming his convictions for access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft.
- Who it affects
- The Sixth Circuit's decision upholding Vance's convictions remains in place for him, but the Supreme Court did not resolve the ACCA question.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
Vance had argued that the evidence was insufficient to link him to online transactions and to show the required connection to interstate commerce.
Vance also argued that the evidence did not link him to online transactions or show the connection to interstate commerce that the law required.
Question presented
Whether the "categorical approach" for determining whether a prior conviction is a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) requires a court to consider the "least of the acts criminalized" by the statute of conviction, or whether the court may look to the defendant's actual conduct?
What the Court decided
Holding
Petition DENIED.
What's next
This Supreme Court review request is finished. The Sixth Circuit's decision remains in place for Vance; the ACCA question was not decided in this docket.
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 convictions did the Sixth Circuit decision uphold?
- The Sixth Circuit upheld Vance's convictions for access-device fraud and aggravated identity theft.
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.