Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

869 F.3d 356

Docket No. 17-50367

In re Dockery

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 2017-07-20

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently February 2025

1 federal appellate ·

1 counsel of record

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996)

Relies on Reyes-Requena v. United States · Dean v. United States · In re Tatum

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 2017-07-20

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Barry Charles Dockery, Pro se.

¶2Before JOLLY, HAYNES, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

¶3PER CURIAM:

¶4Barry Charles Dockery, federal prisoner # 57922-180, moves for authorization to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to challenge his convictions and sentences for possession of a firearm by a felon, unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime, conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute marijuana and cocaine base, possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute. He seeks authorization in light of Dean v. United States, _ U.S. _, 137 S.Ct. 1170, 197 L.Ed.2d 490 (2017).

¶5To obtain authorization, a movant must make a prima facie showing that his proposed claims rely on either “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense” or “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” § 2255(h); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Reyes-Requena v. United States, 243 F.3d 893, 897-99 (5th Cir. 2001).

¶6.Dockery does not assert that his claims rely on newly discovered evidence, nor has he made a prima facie showing that Dean announced a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. See § 2255(h)(2); In re Tatum, 233 F.3d 857, 859 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Dockery’s motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion is DENIED.

/869/f3d/356 · .json · Public domain