In re: Charles Therion Clayton

829 F.3d 1254, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13133, 2016 WL 3878156
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedJuly 18, 2016
Docket16-14556-J
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 829 F.3d 1254 (In re: Charles Therion Clayton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re: Charles Therion Clayton, 829 F.3d 1254, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13133, 2016 WL 3878156 (11th Cir. 2016).

Opinions

ORDER:

Charles Clayton seeks permission to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Because Mr. Clayton previously filed a § 2255 motion, his new motion must be “certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain ... a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the re[1256]*1256quirements of this subsection.” Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Mr. Clayton was sentenced in 2010 using United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. This court has held that Johnson does not apply to sentences that were based on USSG § 4B1.1. See United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1196 (11th Cir. 2015). Mr. Clayton has therefore not made “a prima facie showing” that his motion will meet § 2255(h)’s requirements for second or successive § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D).

APPLICATION DENIED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Stoney Lester v. United States
921 F.3d 1306 (Eleventh Circuit, 2019)
United States v. Michael St. Hubert
918 F.3d 1174 (Eleventh Circuit, 2019)
Irma Ovalles v. United States
Eleventh Circuit, 2018
In re: Octavious Williams
898 F.3d 1098 (Eleventh Circuit, 2018)
United States v. Kimbrough
319 F. Supp. 3d 912 (M.D. Tennessee, 2018)
In Re: Orestes Hernandez
Eleventh Circuit, 2017
United States v. Calvin Matchett
837 F.3d 1118 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
Ziglar v. United States
201 F. Supp. 3d 1315 (M.D. Alabama, 2016)
In re Chance
831 F.3d 1335 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
In Re: Devon Chance
Eleventh Circuit, 2016
In Re: Brad Bradley Bradford
830 F.3d 1273 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
In re Jones
830 F.3d 1295 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)
In Re: Wayne Anderson
829 F.3d 1290 (Eleventh Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
829 F.3d 1254, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 13133, 2016 WL 3878156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-charles-therion-clayton-ca11-2016.