Gallagher v. United States (2013)

See Winarske v. United States, 913 F.3d 765 , 768–69 (8th Cir. 2019); In re Bourgeois, 902 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2018); In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014); Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 2002).

UNITED STATES 17 2019); In re Bourgeois, 902 F.3d 446, 447 (5th Cir. 2018); In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014); Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 2002).

In re Graham, 714 F.3d 1181, 1183 (10th Cir.2013) (per curiam); Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315-16 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam); Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293, 294 (8th Cir.2013) (per curiam); Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137 , 1140 *739 (9th Cir.2012); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189, 1189 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam); Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878, 879, 881 (7th Cir.2012); In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 933-34 (11th Cir.2012) (per curiam).

A review of recent circuit case law reveals tellingly that the majority of the circuit courts, all that have considered the matter, have found that neither Supreme Court decision announced such a “newly recognized right.” Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315 , [316], 2013 WL 1235668 at *1 (2d Cir. 2013); Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293, 294 (8th Cir.2013); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189 (5th Cir.2012); Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878 -80 (7th Cir.2012); Buenrostro…

While it is true that the prevailing conclusion among the federal appellate courts is that Lafler applies retroactively because it was simply an “application” of Strickland and thus did not create a new rule, see, e.g., Gallagher v United States, 711 F3d 315, 315 (CA 2, 2013) (“Neither Lafler nor [Missouri v Frye, 566 US 134 (2012)] announced ‘a new rule of constitutional law’: Both are applications of Strickland”), the Utah Supreme Court concluded to the contrary that Lafle…

See, e.g., Gallagher v United States, 711 F3d 315, 315-316 (CA 2, 2013) (“Neither Lafler nor Frye announced a new rule of constitutional law: Both are applications of [Strickland].”) (quotation marks omitted); Williams v United States, 705 F3d 293, 294 (CA 8, 2013) (“We . . . conclude, as have the other circuit courts of appeals that have addressed the issue, that neither [Lafler] nor Frye announced a new rule of constitutional law.”); Buenrostro v United States, 697 F3d 113…

Gallagher v. United States , 711 F.3d 315, 315-16 (2d Cir. 2013). .

From First Circuit to Eleventh, see Pagan-San Miguel v. United States, 736 F.3d 44, 45 (1st Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Navar v. Warden Fort Dix FCI, 569 F. App’x 139 , 139–40 (3d Cir. 2014) (per curiam); Harris v. Smith, 548 F. App’x 79, 79 (4th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189, 1189 (5th Cir. 2012) (per curiam); In re Liddell, 722 F.3d 737, 738 (6th Cir. 2013) (per curiam); Hare v. Un…

From First Circuit to Eleventh, see Pagan-San Miguel v. United States, 736 F.3d 44, 45 (1st Cir.2013) (per curiam); Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam); Navar v. Warden Fort Dix FCI, 569 Fed.Appx. 139, 139-40 (3d Cir.2014) (per curiam); Harris v. Smith, 548 Fed.Appx. 79, 79 (4th Cir.2013) (per curiam); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189, 1189 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam); In re Liddell, 722 F.3d 737, 738 (6th Cir.2013) (per curiam); Hare v. United …

Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 316 (2d Cir.2013); Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293, 294 (8th Cir.2013); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189 (5th Cir.2012); Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878 -80 (7th Cir.2012); Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137 -40 (9th Cir.2012); In re Graham, 714 F.3d 1181, 1182-83 (10th Cir.2013); In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 932-34 (11th Cir.2012). 8 Our circuit court of appeals has followed suit.

The Second Circuit has held that Lafler and Frye are only applications of Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), and therefore do not establish “a new rule of constitutional law,” and that neither is “retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court.” Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315-16 (2d Cir.2013) (dismissing a § 2255 claim that relied on Lafler and Frye as untimely).

See Gallagher v. United States , 711 F.3d 315 (CA2 2013) ; United States v. Winkelman , 746 F.3d 134 , 135-136 (CA3 2014) ; In re Bourgeois , 902 F.3d 446 , 447 (CA5 2018) ; Taylor v. Gilkey , 314 F.3d 832 , 836 (CA7 2002) ; Winarske v. United States , 913 F.3d 765 , 768-769 (CA8 2019) ; In re Baptiste , 828 F.3d 1337 , 1340 (CA11 2016).

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013); United States v. Winkelman, 746 F.3d 134, 135 (3d Cir. 2014); In re Bourgeois, 902 F.3d 446 , 447–48 (5th Cir. 2018); Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832, 836 (7th Cir. 2002); Winarske v. United States, 913 F.3d 765 , 768–69 (8th Cir. 2019); In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337, 1339 (11th Cir. 2016).

Compare In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337, 1340 (11th Cir. 2016) (“[W]e hold that § 2244(b)(1)’s mandate applies to applications for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion presenting the same claims we have already rejected . . . in a previous application.”), Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (“We must dismiss a claim that was presented in a prior motion under § 2255.” (citing § 2244(b)(1))), and Taylor v. Gilkey, 314 F.3d 832,…

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013).

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013).

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir.2013) (“We must dismiss a claim that was presented in a prior motion under § 2255.”).

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315-16 (2d Cir.2013) (per curiam); Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293, 294 (8th Cir.2013) (per curiam); Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir.2012); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189, 1189 (5th Cir.2012) (per curiam); Hare v. United States, 688 F.3d 878, 879, 881 (7th Cir.2012); In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 932-34 (11th Cir.2012) (per curiam).

First, the successive habeas petition “must be certified” by the Court of Appeals, 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (h), which requires the prisoner to “make[] a prima facie showing,” id. § 2244(b)(3)(C), that his claim “relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,” id. § 2244(b)(2)(A); see also Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (applying section 2244(b) to a successive section 2255 petition).3 In…

Feb. 14, 2013), aff'd, 65 A.3d 617 (Del. 2013) (TABLE); accord In re Graham, 714 F.3d 1181, 1182 (10th Cir. 2013) (“To date, however, every circuit court to consider the question has held that Frye and Lafler do not establish a new rule of constitutional law.”); see Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315 , 315– 16 (2d Cir. 2013); Williams v. United States, 705 F.3d 293, 294 (8th Cir. 2013); Buenrostro v. United States, 697 F.3d 1137, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012); In re King, 697 F…

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (denying successive § 2255 motion to the extent it "presents the same claim presented in the first . . . § 2255 motion").

See Gallagher v. United States, 711 F.3d 315, 315 (2d Cir. 2013) (denying successive § 2255 motion to the extent it "presents the same claim presented in the first . . . § 2255 motion").

See e.g., Gallagher v. U.S., 711 F.3d 315, 315-316 (2d Cir.2013); In re King, 697 F.3d 1189 , 1189 (5th Cir.2012); In re Perez, 682 F.3d 930, 933 (11th Cir.2012).