Byrd v. United States, 2:17-cv-00414

Byrd was convicted in 2003 on a four-count superseding indictment and sentenced to lengthy terms including mandatory life sentences; judgment affirmed on appeal and amended for a clerical error.
Byrd filed a §2255 motion in 2006 raising Brady/Giglio, selective prosecution, and ineffective-assistance claims; that motion was denied in 2008.
Byrd sought other collateral relief (writ of audita querela) which was denied, and an application to the Eleventh Circuit for authorization to file a successive §2255 was previously denied in 2011.
In July 2017 Byrd filed a successive §2255 invoking McCarthan (11th Cir. en banc) and challenging the §851 enhancement and the constitutionality of §841(a)/(b).
The government opposed; Byrd conceded the motion was successive but argued §2255(h)’s successive-petition bar is unconstitutional after McCarthan.
The district court dismissed the motion for lack of jurisdiction because Byrd had not obtained Eleventh Circuit authorization under 28 U.S.C. §2255(h); the court denied a COA and leave to appeal in forma pauperis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court may hear Byrd's successive §2255 without Eleventh Circuit authorization	Byrd: §2255(h)’s restriction is unconstitutional in light of McCarthan; merits should be reached	Government: Byrd must obtain §2255(h) authorization; McCarthan does not nullify that requirement	Court: Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; authorization required and not obtained
Whether McCarthan invalidates §2255(h) successive-petition bar	Byrd: McCarthan supports that successive-motion restriction is unconstitutional	Gov: McCarthan does not address §2255(h); Eleventh Circuit continues to require authorization	Court: McCarthan does not relieve §2255(h) authorization requirement; Eleventh Circuit precedent remains binding
Whether Byrd's §851-based claim (mandatory life) allows successive filing	Byrd: §851 enhancement unconstitutional as applied	Gov: Procedural default — claim is successive and must be authorized first	Court: Not reached on merits; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether §841(a) is unconstitutional for not including penalties in §841(b) as element	Byrd: §841(a) invalid for failing to include penalty elements	Gov: Procedural default — successive filing required; merits not reached	Court: Not reached on merits; dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

McCarthan v. Dir. of Goodwill Indus.-Suncoast, Inc., 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (Eleventh Circuit en banc decision cited by petitioner; court explains McCarthan does not eliminate §2255(h) authorization requirement)
Gilbert v. United States, 640 F.3d 1293 (11th Cir. 2011) (discusses standards for successive §2255 motions and need for appellate authorization)
Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211 (11th Cir. 2003) (jurisdictional consequences of unauthorized successive §2255 filings)
United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005) (Sentencing-Guidelines jurisprudence referenced in procedural history)
Harbison v. Bell, 556 U.S. 180 (2009) (standard for appeals from denials of habeas relief cited in COA discussion)
Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274 (2004) (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for whether issues deserve encouragement to proceed further)