In re: Kiwanis Jones, No. 16-14053 (11th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Petitioner filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A). Petitioner asserts that his sentence, enhanced as a career offender under the residual clause of the Sentencing Guidelines, violates due process. Petitioner argued that his prior conviction for third-degree escape is no longer a predicate offense under the Guidelines because the residual clause is invalid in light of Johnson v. United States. The court held that section 2244(b)(1)'s mandate applies to applications for leave to file a second or successive section 2255 motion. The court also held that a prisoner may not file "what amounts to a motion for reconsideration under the guise of a separate and purportedly 'new' application" when the new application raises the same claim that was raised and rejected in the prior application. In this case, the court rejected petitioner's application because the claim in his instant application was raised and rejected on the merits in a prior application. Accordingly, the court denied the application.

The court issued a subsequent related opinion or order on July 27, 2016.

Download PDF
Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 1 of 24 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [PUBLISH] No. 16-14053-J IN RE: KIWANIS JONES, Petitioner. Application for Leave to File a Second or Successive Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) Before JORDAN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges. BY THE PANEL: Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h) and 2244(b)(3)(A), Kiwanis Jones has filed an application seeking an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence, 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Such authorization may be granted only if this Court certifies that the second or successive motion contains a claim involving: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). "The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 2 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 3 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 4 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 5 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 6 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 7 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 8 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 9 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 10 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 11 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 12 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 13 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 14 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 15 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 16 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 17 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 18 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 19 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 20 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 21 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 22 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 23 of 24 Case: 16-14053 Date Filed: 07/27/2016 Page: 24 of 24