Kareem Sampson v., 954 F.3d 159

In 2014 Sampson pleaded guilty in the E.D. Pa. to possession of a firearm by a felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and agreed to a plea waiver limiting appeals and collateral challenges (except ineffective assistance claims).
The district court denied his motion to withdraw the plea and sentenced him to 15 years. On direct appeal this Court enforced the waiver. United States v. Sampson, 684 F. App’x 177.
Sampson filed a § 2255 motion, which the district court denied in April 2019 as waived or meritless. He then sought permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion based on Rehaif v. United States.
Rehaif held the government must prove a defendant knew both that he possessed a firearm and that he belonged to the class of persons barred from firearm possession. 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019).
To file a successive § 2255, Sampson must make a prima facie showing that his claim either rests on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
The Third Circuit denied authorization, concluding Rehaif construed the statute rather than announcing a new rule of constitutional law and, in any event, no Supreme Court decision has made such a rule retroactive to cases on collateral review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rehaif announced a new rule of constitutional law under § 2255(h)(2)	Rehaif requires proof that defendant knew his prohibited status, so Sampson's conviction is legally defective	Rehaif construed statutory mens rea rather than announcing a new constitutional rule	Denied — Rehaif interpreted statutes, not a new rule of constitutional law
Whether any new rule from Rehaif has been made retroactive to collateral cases by the Supreme Court	Sampson contends Rehaif should apply to his case on collateral review	Government: no Supreme Court retroactivity ruling applies	Denied — even if Rehaif were a new rule, the Supreme Court has not made it retroactive
Whether Sampson made the required prima facie showing to file a second/successive § 2255	Rehaif-based claim satisfies § 2255(h)(2) and was previously unavailable	Prior § 2255 was denied on the merits; Sampson has not met § 2244(b)(3)(C) prima facie standard	Denied — Sampson failed to make the prima facie showing required for authorization

Rehaif v. United States, 139 S. Ct. 2191 (2019) (statutory interpretation requiring proof of both possession and knowledge of prohibited status under §922(g))
Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656 (2001) (Supreme Court must make new rule retroactive for collateral review)
In re Hoffner, 870 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2017) (procedural standards for successive §2255 applications and advisory nature of 30-day decision deadline)
United States v. Roberson, 194 F.3d 408 (3d Cir. 1999) (prior §2255 denial on merits requires authorization to file successive motion)
In re Palacios, 931 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2019) (Rehaif construed §922(g); discussed retroactivity issues)
United States v. Sampson, 684 F. App’x 177 (3d Cir. 2017) (enforcing Sampson's plea waiver on direct appeal)