`
`
`
` Cite as: 587 U. S. ____ (2019)
`
` ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
`
`
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
`JAMES MYERS v. UNITED STATES
`ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED
`
`STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
`
` No. 18–6859. Decided May 13, 2019
`The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma
`
`pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are grant-
`ed. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to
`
`the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
`
`for further consideration in light of the position asserted
`
`by the Solicitor General in his brief for the United States
`filed on March 21, 2019.
`CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS,
`
`JUSTICE ALITO, and JUSTICE KAVANAUGH join, dissenting.
`I dissent from the Court’s decision to grant the petition,
`
`
`vacate the judgment, and remand the case. Nothing has
`changed since the Eighth Circuit held that Myers’s convic-
`tion for first-degree terroristic threatening qualifies as a
`“violent felony” under the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18
`U. S. C. §924(e). The Government continues to believe
`
`that classification is correct, for the same reasons that it
`gave to the Eighth Circuit. But the Solicitor General asks
`
`us to send the case back, and this Court obliges, because
`he believes the Eighth Circuit made some mistakes in its
`legal analysis, even if it ultimately reached the right
`result. He wants the hard-working judges of the Eighth
`Circuit to take a “fresh” look at the case, so that they may
`
`“consider the substantial body of Arkansas case law sup-
`porting the conclusion that the statute’s death-or-serious
`injury language sets forth an element of the crime,” and
`then re-enter the same judgment the Court vacates today.
`
`Brief for United States 9, 11.
`I see no basis for this disposition in these circumstances.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
` MYERS v. UNITED STATES
`
` ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting
`
`
`
` See Machado v. Holder, 559 U. S. 966 (2010) (ROBERTS,
`
`
`C. J., dissenting); Nunez v. United States, 554 U. S. 911, 912
`
`(2008) (Scalia, J., dissenting). Unless there is some new
`
`development to consider, we should vacate the judgment of
`a lower federal court only after affording that court the
`courtesy of reviewing the case on the merits and identify-
`
`ing a controlling legal error. This case does not warrant
`
`If the Government wants to
`our independent review.
`
`ensure that the Eighth Circuit does not repeat its alleged
`
`error, it should have no difficulty presenting the matter to
`subsequent panels of the Eighth Circuit, employing the
`procedure for en banc review should it be necessary.
`
`I would deny the petition.
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
