Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Salinas v. United States, 05-8400 (2006)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States Number: 05-8400 Visitors: 19
Filed: Apr. 24, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: Cite as: 547 U. S. _ (2006) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JEFFREY JEROME SALINAS v. UNITED STATES ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 05–8400. Decided April 24, 2006 PER CURIAM. The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is re manded to the Fifth
More
                 Cite as: 547 U. S. ____ (2006)            1

                          Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
   JEFFREY JEROME SALINAS v. UNITED STATES
   ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

    STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

              No. 05–8400. Decided April 24, 2006 


  PER CURIAM.
  The petition for writ of certiorari to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and the motion of
petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are
granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is re
manded to the Fifth Circuit for further consideration.
  The Fifth Circuit concluded that petitioner’s prior con
viction for simple possession of a controlled substance
constituted a “controlled substance offense” for purposes of
United States Sentencing Commission, Guidelines Man
ual §4B1.1(a) (2003). The term “controlled substance
offense” is defined in pertinent part, however, as “an
offense under federal or state law . . . that prohibits . . .
the possession of a controlled substance (or a counterfeit
substance) with intent to manufacture, import, export,
distribute, or dispense.” §4B1.2(b) (emphasis added).
Accordingly, the Fifth Circuit erred in treating petitioner’s
conviction for simple possession as a “controlled substance
offense.” The Solicitor General acknowledges that the
Fifth Circuit incorrectly ruled for the United States on
this ground. Brief in Opposition 8–9.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer