Correcting criminal judgments
Iran Dewayne Ketchup v. United States
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.

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
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- 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.