Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02205/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02205-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Anthony Ortega
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: 

ANTHONY ORTEGA, 

 Movant. 

No. 15-2205 

(D.C. Nos. 1:15-CV-00610-JCH-GBW & 

1:03-CR-01566-JCH-1) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER 

 

Before McHUGH, EBEL, MORITZ, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Anthony Ortega seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. Because Mr. Ortega cannot meet the requirements for authorization, 

we deny the motion and dismiss this proceeding. 

 Mr. Ortega entered a guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm and 

ammunition. He was sentenced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) to 

188 months in prison. The district court dismissed Mr. Ortega’s initial § 2255 

because it was untimely. He recently filed a second § 2255 motion, but the district 

court dismissed it because he failed to obtain authorization from this court to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion. He now seeks that authorization. 

 Mr. Ortega contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), establishes a new rule of constitutional law 

that entitles him to authorization. In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

December 2, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2205 Document: 01019533439 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

“imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the [ACCA] violates the 

Constitution’s guarantee of due process.” Id. at 2563. 

 To receive authorization, Mr. Ortega must make a prima facie showing that his 

second or successive claim is based on “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). We recently decided that the Johnson

decision does not meet this showing, explaining: “[t]he Supreme Court has not held 

in one case, or in a combination of holdings that dictate the conclusion, that the new 

rule of constitutional law announced in Johnson is retroactive to cases on collateral 

review.” In re Gieswein, 802 F.3d 1143, 1148-49 (10th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). 

 Because Mr. Ortega has failed to make the requisite showing for authorization 

in § 2255(h)(2), 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 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-2205 Document: 01019533439 Date Filed: 12/02/2015 Page: 2