Garcia v. United States, 923 F.3d 1242

Garcia pleaded guilty to methamphetamine conspiracy (21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841) and a § 924(c) firearm offense; sentenced in 2008 (later reduced to 195 months).
He did not directly appeal; filed a § 2255 petition alleging his plea was involuntary, which the district court denied.
A later habeas filing was treated as successive and denied for lack of authorization; Garcia sought Ninth Circuit authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 petition.
Garcia based his authorization request on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dean v. United States, arguing Dean announced a new constitutional rule (and that it should be applied retroactively).
The panel appointed counsel and asked for briefing on whether Dean satisfied 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2)’s four requirements for second-or-successive authorization.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dean announced a new rule of constitutional law	Dean created a due-process-based right requiring sentencing courts to consider § 924(c) mandatory minimums when imposing a "just" sentence	Dean announced a statutory rule of interpretation, not a constitutional rule	Denied — Dean is statutory, not constitutional; Garcia fails § 2255(h)(2) constitutional-rule requirement
Whether Dean’s rule is retroactive to cases on collateral review	Dean’s change to sentencing calculation alters the substantive reach of § 924(c) and should be retroactive	Dean is permissive (allows but does not require consideration) and the Supreme Court has not declared it retroactive; it is not a watershed procedural rule	Denied — Court not made Dean retroactive; Garcia fails § 2255(h)(2) retroactivity requirement

Bible v. Schriro, 651 F.3d 1060 (9th Cir. 2011) (AEDPA second-or-successive framework and high bar for authorization)
United States v. Lopez, 577 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2009) (procedural context for successive federal habeas applications)
Ezell v. United States, 778 F.3d 762 (9th Cir. 2015) (explaining that the new-rule must itself be constitutional)
In re Dorsainvil, 119 F.3d 245 (3d Cir. 1997) (same principle regarding constitutional-rule requirement)
Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (Sup. Ct. 1989) (default rule barring retroactivity of new constitutional procedural rules)
Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (Sup. Ct. 2001) (Supreme Court must make a new rule retroactive to collateral cases)
Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (new substantive rules apply retroactively)
Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (Sup. Ct. 2016) (example of Court making a rule retroactive)
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (Sup. Ct. 2012) (substantive rule regarding juvenile LWOP; contrast with Dean)