982 F.3d 1226
9th Cir.2020Background
- Gerald Leslie Tate pleaded guilty in 2015 to being a felon in possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2).
- His conviction was affirmed on appeal and the Supreme Court denied certiorari; a first § 2255 motion was denied by the district court.
- After the Supreme Court decided Rehaif v. United States (2019), Tate moved to file a second § 2255 motion arguing his indictment, plea, and conviction were defective because Rehaif requires proof a defendant knew he belonged to the prohibited class.
- Tate sought authorization from the Ninth Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2)(A) and (b)(3)(C).
- The panel considered whether Rehaif announced a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive on collateral review, which is necessary to certify a successive § 2255 motion.
- The court denied authorization, holding Tate failed to make a prima facie showing that Rehaif announced a constitutional (rather than statutory) rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rehaif announced a new rule of constitutional law for purposes of authorizing a successive § 2255 | Rehaif created a constitutional due-process/fundamental-fairness rule requiring knowledge of prohibited status; thus Tate may seek relief | Rehaif is a statutory interpretation of § 924(a)(2), not a new constitutional rule, so successive relief is not authorized | Court held Rehaif announced a statutory rule, not a new constitutional rule, so Tate failed to make the required prima facie showing; authorization denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (held § 924(a)(2)’s scienter requirement includes knowledge of prohibited status)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (held Miller’s substantive constitutional rule was retroactive on collateral review)
- Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) (barred mandatory life without parole for juveniles under Eighth Amendment)
- United States v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 310 U.S. 534 (1940) (statutory interpretation aims to give effect to Congress’s intent)
- Mata v. United States, 969 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2020) (held Rehaif did not announce a constitutional rule for successive § 2255 relief)