Case ID: f-appx_472/html/0904-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Miguel BEATO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-14812
    Non-Argument Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 19, 2012.
    Ricardo Corona, The Corona Law Firm, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Scott M. Edenfield, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Marlene Rodriguez, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before MARCUS, MARTIN and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Miguel Beato appeals the denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The sole question before us is whether, under the principles of Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), the Supreme Court’s decision in Padilla v. Kentucky, — U.S.-, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), is retroactively applicable on collateral review, such that Beato’s motion to vacate is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). According to Beato, the Supreme Court in Padilla established a new and “watershed” rule of criminal procedure. Teague, 489 U.S. at 311, 109 S.Ct. at 1076. Our recent decision in Figuereo-Sanchez v. United States, 678 F.3d 1203 (11th Cir.2012), forecloses this argument. See id. at 1206-09, 2012 WL 1499871, at *3-6. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

AFFIRMED.