Filed: Jan. 10, 2020
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY MCGEE, No. 18-72243 Applicant, v. ORDER* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Application to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.
Summary: NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY MCGEE, No. 18-72243 Applicant, v. ORDER* UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. Application to File Second or Successive Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019 San Francisco, California Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges. The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S..
More
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JAN 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY MCGEE, No. 18-72243
Applicant,
v.
ORDER*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
Application to File Second or Successive
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
Argued and Submitted November 13, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and TASHIMA and WARDLAW, Circuit
Judges.
The application for authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. §
2255 motion in the district court is denied. The applicant seeks to rely on McCoy
v. Louisiana,
138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), but has not demonstrated that even if McCoy
were held to be retroactive to cases on collateral review, it would govern the facts
of his case. The applicant has therefore not made a prima facie showing under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
U.S.C. § 2255(h) of “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on
collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.”
Any pending motions are denied as moot.
No further filings will be entertained in this case.
DENIED.
2