Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-05113/USCOURTS-ca10-19-05113-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Vysean Embry
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: VYSEAN EMBRY, 

 Movant.

No. 19-5113

(D.C. Nos. 4:18-CV-00066-GKF-FHM &

4:15-CR-000133-GKF-1)

(N.D. Okla.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before HOLMES, PHILLIPS, and EID, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Vysean Embry, proceeding pro se, seeks authorization to file a second or 

successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. For the following reasons, we deny authorization.

Mr. Embry entered a guilty plea to one count of conspiracy to distribute crack 

cocaine. He was sentenced to 180 months’ imprisonment. He filed an appeal, but we 

granted the government’s motion to enforce the appeal waiver in his plea agreement and 

dismissed the appeal. Mr. Embry later filed a § 2255 motion. The district court denied 

the § 2255 motion and Mr. Embry did not appeal from that decision. He now seeks 

authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. 

Mr. Embry appears to seek authorization to challenge his appeal waiver and 

sentence. He asserts he has new evidence that trial and appellate counsel failed to 

investigate and raise the fact that he suffered from mental illness, “which caused him to 

distribute crack cocaine.” Mot. at 2. He contends he may be eligible for a downward 

variance, and he did not waive his right to appeal. See id. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 7, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-5113 Document: 010110284886 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 1
2

To obtain authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion to raise these 

claims, Mr. Embry must make a prima facie showing that he has “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 [him] guilty of the offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1); see also id. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(C). Mr. Embry has failed to point to any new evidence that would establish 

that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the offense to which he pled 

guilty. Accordingly, he has failed to satisfy the standard for authorization in 

§ 2255(h)(1), and we deny his motion. This denial of authorization “shall not be 

appealable and shall not be the subject of a petition for rehearing or for a writ of 

certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

Appellate Case: 19-5113 Document: 010110284886 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 2