Skip to main content

Correcting criminal judgments

Iran Dewayne Ketchup v. United States

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied. Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition. See 28 U. S. C. §455(b)(3) and Code of Conduct for Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, Canon 3B(2)(e) (prior government employment).

What it’s about
Iran Ketchup asked the Supreme Court to review whether the Eleventh Circuit should have recalled its mandate and allowed correction of a criminal judgment that, he said, listed a crime he was not charged with or convicted of.
Who it affects
Ketchup did not get Supreme Court review, and the Court did not decide whether his criminal judgment should be corrected.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Iran Dewayne Ketchup, Petitioner v. United States
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide that dispute.

Ketchup's petition challenged how the Eleventh Circuit handled his request to have the trial court correct the judgment.

Question presented

1. Was the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals required to recall its mandate in United States v. Ketchup, Case No. 96-8096, 107 F.3d 27 (11th Cir. 1997) (Before Anderson, Birch, and Ed Carnes) when it was alerted that the Criminal Judgment that it affirmed had a "clerical error" in it, which listed the wrong crime, for which Ketchup had not been charged, Indicted or convicted of such crime? 2. Was the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals required to provide relief, according to its own Circuit precedent of United States v. Massey, 443 F.3d 814 (11th Cir. 2006) and United States v. Starr, 717 Fed. Appx. 918 (11th Cir. 2017), when Ketchup request that such court recall its mandate and remand to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia to allow the Criminal Judgment to be corrected? 3. Was the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals required to provide relief, according to the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions in both United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363-64 (1926) and American Trucking Ass'ns v. Frisco Transp. Co., 358 U.S. 133, 145 (1958)? 4. Did the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals create a Circuit split by not adhering to this Court's decision in United States v. Daugherty, 269 U.S. 360, 363 (1926)?

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Jun 24, 2026 · Court records

More questions

1
Was the case argued?
No; argument had not been scheduled before the Court denied review.

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.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis