In re: Shines, No. 12-6208 (10th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this CaseFederal prisoner Rufus Shines sought authorization from the Tenth Circuit to file a second or successive 2255 motion to challenge his sentence. On appeal, he argued that the Supreme Court's recent decision in "Dorsey v. United States" (132 S.Ct. 2321 (2012)) and its application of the Fair Sentencing Act's lower mandatory minimums for sentences like his applied to pre-Act offenders. In relevant part, the FSA eliminated the mandatory minimum five-year sentence that was applied to Mr. Shines. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit denied to authorize the successive motion: "Mr. Shines relies on 2255(h)(2), claiming that 'Dorsey' announced a new rule of law. However Dorsey did not announce a new rule of constitutional law."
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.