United States v. Stokes, 1:98-cr-00258

Linton was convicted in this district of conspiracy to distribute cocaine and conspiracy to commit murder in aid of racketeering, sentenced to life.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgment on direct appeal and his petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court was denied.
This court denied his §2255 motion in 2005.
The Fourth Circuit dismissed his subsequent appeal in 2009.
In 2013, Linton filed another §2255 motion, which the court treated as a second or successive petition without the required Fourth Circuit pre-filing authorization.
AEDPA governs timeliness and authorization for second or successive motions under §2255(h).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the motion is properly a second/successive §2255 petition.	Linton contends Frye/Lafler create a retroactive new right.	No authorization; §2255(h) requires circuit approval for second/successive motions.	Denied; authorization not shown.
Whether the motion is timely under AEDPA despite the Frye/Lafler argument.	Args Frye/Lafler render a new rule retroactive on collateral review.	Frye/Lafler did not announce retroactive constitutional rules.	Denied on timeliness/authorization grounds.
Whether Frye and Lafler created a new constitutional right retroactively applicable on collateral review.	Frye/Lafler create new rights that apply retroactively.	Cases do not establish retroactive new rules for §2255 beyond direct holdings.	Not established; motion denied.

United States v. Linton, 62 Fed. Appx. 352 (4th Cir. 2003) (affirmed conviction on direct appeal; no retroactivity discussion here)
Ahmad v. United States, 540 U.S. 930 (U.S. 2003) (denial of certiorari)
Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (Supreme Court, 2012) (requests Supreme Court rule on counsel's misadvice in plea negotiations)
Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (Supreme Court, 2012) (Supreme Court rule on ineffective assistance for failure to disclose plea offers)