In Re: Billy Lampton
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 608
| 5th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lampton, in federal custody, seeks authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) to file a second or successive petition to vacate his sentence.
- A prior § 2255 petition did not yield a new judgment; the 1997 August judgment remained the operative conviction/sentence.
- The district court’s 2001 judgment in the § 2255 proceeding terminated that proceeding rather than vacating the CCE sentence.
- Lampton’s CCE life sentence and the underlying CCE conviction remained intact after the initial § 2255 proceeding.
- Lampton’s current petition argues under Magwood that a new amended judgment exists and thus could be filed without authorization, but the court disagrees.
- The panel had previously warned Lampton that frivolous further filings could result in sanctions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Lampton’s petition is second or successive under § 2255(h). | Lampton argues Magwood creates a new judgment intervening between petitions. | Lampton’s petition challenges the same judgment as the prior petition; no new judgment intervened. | Yes; petition is second or successive. |
| Whether Magwood applies where no new sentence was imposed. | Magwood applies when a new judgment intervenes due to a new sentence. | No new sentence here; no Magwood-triggered new judgment. | Magwood does not apply; no new judgment intervening. |
| Whether a new rule of constitutional law is satisfied for a second or successive petition. | Padilla retroactivity could render the petition viable. | Padilla, if retroactive, does not aid a juried-citizen defendant and O’Brien is statutory-interpretation. | Petition does not rely on a new retroactive constitutional rule. |
| Whether Lampton’s petitions rely on newly discovered evidence or a retroactive new rule under § 2255(h)(2). | Lampton contends his Bass-based innocence claim qualifies under § 2255(h)(2). | Bass claim is not a newly discovered evidence showing retroactive rule; does not satisfy § 2255(h)(2). | Does not meet § 2255(h) requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Magwood v. Patterson, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (Supreme Court 2010) (new judgment intervening between petitions bars second/ successive petition unless a new sentence.)
- In re Barnes, N/A (N/A) (new sentence can create a new judgment for § 2244 purposes (Second Circuit discussion).)
- Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (Supreme Court 2007) (final judgment in a criminal case; timing of judgment affects AEDPA timing.)
- Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930 (Supreme Court 2007) (context for AEDPA second/successive framework.)
- Murphy v. United States, 634 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2011) (finality/interpretation guidance in AEDPA proceedings.)
- Johnson v. United States, 623 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (discussion of concurrent life sentences and undisturbed sentences on review.)
- United States v. Buckley, 586 F.2d 498 (5th Cir. 1978) (rule that affects how concurrent sentences are treated on relief.)