In Re: William Gray, Jr. v., 850 F.3d 139

William R. Gray, Jr. was convicted of first-degree murder (1993) and originally sentenced to death; after federal habeas relief on sentencing, North Carolina resentenced him to life imprisonment when the State declined to seek death.
Gray previously filed a § 2254 petition that resulted in a conditional writ ordering resentencing (Gray v. Branker). After resentencing, Gray sought to file a new § 2254 petition challenging the intervening judgment (including his underlying conviction).
Gray moved in the Fourth Circuit for authorization to file a “second or successive” § 2254 petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3); he argued authorization was unnecessary because the resentencing created a new judgment.
The key legal question: whether a habeas petition filed after a successful habeas that produced an intervening (resentencing) judgment is itself “second or successive” when it challenges the undisturbed underlying conviction.
The court applied the Supreme Court’s judgment-based rule from Magwood v. Patterson, which holds that a petition that is the first to challenge a new intervening judgment is not second or successive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a § 2254 petition filed after resentencing is “second or successive” when it challenges the undisturbed underlying conviction	Gray: resentencing created a new intervening judgment, so his petition is the first to challenge that judgment and not second or successive	State: (implicit) petition is successive because Gray previously litigated habeas relief and could have raised these claims earlier	The court held the petition is not second or successive; resentencing produced a new judgment that resets § 2244(b) gatekeeping

Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320 (2010) (judgment-based rule: petition first to challenge new intervening judgment is not “second or successive”)
Gray v. Branker, 529 F.3d 220 (4th Cir. 2008) (Fourth Circuit granted habeas relief as to sentencing and ordered resentencing)
Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147 (2007) (discusses effect of intervening judgment on successive-petition analysis)
Johnson v. United States, 623 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2010) (applies Magwood rule; petition challenging new judgment is not successive)
King v. Morgan, 807 F.3d 154 (6th Cir. 2015) (holds petitioner may challenge undisturbed conviction after full resentencing)
Wentzell v. Neven, 674 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2012) (adopts judgment-based approach post-Magwood)
In re Wright, 826 F.3d 774 (4th Cir. 2016) (distinguishes cases with no intervening judgment; confirms focus on the judgment challenged)