Pagan-San Miguel v. US, No. 13-1343 (1st Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-1343 CARLOS PÃ GAN-SAN MIGUEL, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES, Respondent. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE MOTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Before Howard, Thompson and Kayatta, Circuit Judges. Carlos PÃ¡gan-San Miguel pro se. Rosa Emilia RodrÃguez-VÃ©lez, United States Attorney, and Nelson PÃ©rez-Sosa, Assistant U.S. Attorney. November 20, 2013 Per Curiam. Petitioner Carlos Pagan-San-Miguel seeks leave to file a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He relies upon the Supreme Court's recent decisions in Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012), and Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012), and upon Martinez v. Ryan, 132 S. Ct. 1309 (2012), and Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S.Ct. 1911 (2013). cases establishes retroactive to a cases "new on rule of collateral However, none of those constitutional review," as 28 law, made U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2) requires. We agree with every other circuit to have considered the issue that neither Frye nor Cooper established a "new rule of constitutional law." See In re Liddell, 722 F.3d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 2013)(per curiam)(citing cases). As the Seventh Circuit pointed out, "the Court's language repeatedly and clearly spoke of applying an established rule to the present facts" and both cases were "decided in the post-conviction context, where state courts ordinarily are not held to proper application of new rules." Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878, 879 (7th Cir. 2012). "The Supreme Court in both cases merely applied the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel according to the test articulated in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 686 (1984), and established in the plea-bargaining context in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U.S. 52 (1985)." Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012). -2- We also join the circuits that have considered the question in holding that Martinez did not announce a new rule of constitutional law. See Jones v. Ryan, ___ F.3d ___, 2013 WL 5676467, *14 (9th Cir.)(citing cases), cert. denied 2013 WL 5733725 (2013). Ninth Circuit explained, "Martinez 'qualifie[d] As the Coleman by recognizing a narrow exception' to that case's rule," and the Court itself "characterized its decision in Martinez as an 'equitable ruling,' and not a 'constitutional' one." Id.; see also Adams v. Thaler, 679 F.3d 312, 323 n.6 (5th Cir. 2012)(same). Therefore, petitioner's reliance upon Martinez and Trevino v. Thaler, supra, (applying Martinez exception where a state's procedural framework "makes it highly unlikely in a typical case that a defendant will have a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel on direct appeal") is unavailing. Petitioner's application for leave to file a second or successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is denied.1 1 "Th[is] . . . denial of an authorization . . . to file a second or successive application shall not be appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of certiorari." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E); see Lykus v. Corsini, 565 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2009). -3-

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.