In Re: Edward Thomas, No. 16-12065 (11th Cir. 2016)

Petitioner filed an application under 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence. The court concluded that petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that he has satisfied the criteria of section 2255(h)(2) where his claim that Descamps v. United States is a new rule of constitutional law that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review is unavailing. The court also concluded that petitioner's claim under Johnson v. United States fails to establish the required prima facie showing because, even though Johnson is a new rule of constitutional law that is retroactive, the applicability of petitioner's armed career criminal enhancement does not turn on the validity of the residual clause. Accordingly, the court denied the motion.