Miguel Beato v. USA, No. 11-14812 (11th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 11-14812 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 11-14812 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cv-21899-ASG ; 1:07cr-20224-ASG-1 MIGUEL BEATO, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent-Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ________________________ (July 19, 2012) Before MARCUS, MARTIN and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Miguel Beato appeals the denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. Case: 11-14812 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 2 of 2 § 2255. The sole question before us is whether, under the principles of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989), the Supreme Court s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is retroactively applicable on collateral review, such that Beato s motion to vacate is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). According to Beato, the Supreme Court in Padilla established a new and watershed rule of criminal procedure. Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S. Ct. at 1076. Our recent decision in Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States, No. 10-14235, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 1499871 (11th Cir. May 1, 2012), forecloses this argument. See id. at *3 6. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court. AFFIRMED. 2
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.
