In re: Felix M. Palacios
931 F.3d 1314
| 11th Cir. | 2019Background
- Felix M. Palacios sought authorization under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A) and 2255(h) to file a second or successive § 2255 motion challenging his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) (possessing a firearm as a felon).
- Palacios relies on Rehaif v. United States, arguing the government failed to prove he knew he possessed a firearm and knew his status as a felon (elements Rehaif requires).
- He requested this court to authorize a second/successive § 2255 motion or hold his application in abeyance pending any Supreme Court pronouncement on Rehaif's retroactivity.
- The panel considered the statutory gatekeeping standard: authorization requires a prima facie showing that the claim invokes either newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court.
- The panel denied authorization, concluding Rehaif did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and, even if it had, the Supreme Court has not made Rehaif retroactive on collateral review.
- Judge Rosenbaum concurred but wrote separately to argue that Rehaif announced a new substantive rule of statutory law that should be cognizable under § 2255(e) (the savings clause) and that Eleventh Circuit precedent (McCarthan) forecloses that remedy despite constitutional concerns.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Palacios may obtain authorization to file a second/successive § 2255 motion based on Rehaif | Rehaif requires proof of knowledge of possession/status; his conviction is invalid and Rehaif supports a second/successive petition | Authorization requires a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court; Rehaif is not such a rule | Denied — Palacios failed to make the § 2255(h) prima facie showing |
| Whether Rehaif announced a new rule of constitutional law retroactive on collateral review | Rehaif announced a requirement that undermines prior convictions | Rehaif clarified statutory elements (not a new constitutional rule) and the Supreme Court has not declared it retroactive | Court: Rehaif did not constitute a new rule of constitutional law for § 2255(h) purposes |
| Whether § 2255(e) (savings clause) permits relief for Rehaif-type claims | (Rosenbaum concurrence) Rehaif is a substantive rule of statutory law that is necessarily retroactive and § 2255(e) must allow habeas relief to avoid Suspension Clause problems | Binding Eleventh Circuit precedent (McCarthan) limits § 2255(e) relief to narrow circumstances (e.g., when sentencing court unavailable) | Panel decision follows binding precedent and denies relief; concurrence argues McCarthan wrongly narrows § 2255(e) |
| Whether court should hold application in abeyance pending Supreme Court retroactivity decision | Palacios asked for abeyance | Court need not hold in abeyance because statutory prerequisites not met | Denied — abeyance request not granted because criteria unmet |
Key Cases Cited
- Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (clarified that prosecution under §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) requires proof of knowledge of relevant elements)
- Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995) (interpreted § 924(c)(1) as requiring active employment of a firearm; exemplar of a new substantive statutory rule with retroactive effect)
- Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) (explained retroactivity and habeas access when a Supreme Court decision shows prior applications risk conviction for noncriminal conduct)
- Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (held substantive rules must have retroactive effect)
- McCarthan v. Director, 851 F.3d 1076 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc) (binding Eleventh Circuit precedent limiting § 2255(e) savings-clause relief; central to panel’s procedural holding)
- Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (discussed requirements for Supreme Court to make a new rule retroactive on collateral review)
- Jordan v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, 485 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 2007) (explains prima facie threshold for authorization of successive petitions)
- Bruce v. Warden Lewisburg USP, 868 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2017) (discussed availability of habeas relief for new substantive statutory rules under savings clause)