Narrative Opinion Summary
The Tenth Circuit reviewed Richard Clark's petition for rehearing on the denial of authorization to file a second or successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Initially, the court denied Clark's request, citing the non-appealability of such denials under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E). Clark argued that § 2244(b)(3)(E) should not apply to his case, asserting that his petition challenged the statute's applicability rather than the denial itself. He referenced Castro v. United States to support his position. While the court agreed that Clark's rehearing petition was not precluded by previous orders or § 2244(b)(3)(E), it found his argument regarding the non-applicability of § 2244(b)(3)(E) to § 2255 motions unconvincing. The court emphasized that both the Tenth Circuit and other circuits have consistently applied § 2244(b)(3)(E) to § 2255 motions, with the certification process for second or successive motions incorporated under § 2255(h). Consequently, the court denied Clark's petition for both panel and en banc rehearing, as no active judges requested a poll. Ultimately, Clark's arguments were deemed insufficient to alter the court's stance on the statutory interpretation and application in his case.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appealability of Authorization Denial under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held that Clark's argument that § 2244(b)(3)(E) does not apply to § 2255 motions is unpersuasive, affirming the Tenth Circuit's consistent application of the statute.
Reasoning: The Tenth Circuit has consistently applied § 2244(b)(3)(E) to § 2255 motions, as have other circuit courts.
Certification Process for Second or Successive Motions under § 2255subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court concluded that the certification process from § 2244 is incorporated into § 2255(h), necessitating certification by an appellate court panel for second or successive motions.
Reasoning: It concludes that § 2255(h) incorporates the certification process from § 2244, mandating that a second or successive motion must be certified by a panel of the appropriate appellate court.
Non-appealability of Rehearing Denialsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that Clark is barred from filing a petition for rehearing regarding the denial of authorization for a second or successive § 2255 motion.
Reasoning: As a result, Clark is barred from filing a petition for rehearing concerning the denial for a second or successive § 2255 motion.