Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50620/USCOURTS-ca5-15-50620-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marco Antonio Alferez
Movant

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

___________________ 

No. 15-50620

___________________ 

In re: MARCO ANTONIO ALFEREZ,

 Movant

________________________ 

Motion for an order authorizing

the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas to consider

a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

________________________ 

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Antonio Alferez, federal prisoner # 66514-280, pleaded guilty 

pursuant to a plea agreement to one count of sexual exploitation of a child in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251, and one count of distribution of material involving 

the sexual exploitation of children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252. Following 

the failure of his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, he now seeks authorization 

to file a successive § 2255 motion to challenge his convictions. Although 

 * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-50620 Document: 00513238001 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/20/2015
No. 15-50620

2

Alferez’s brief is not entirely clear on this point, if granted authorization, 

Alferez apparently intends to argue in his successive petition that the 

Government violated his right against unreasonable searches and seizures 

under the Fourth Amendment and also that the Government withheld 

exculpatory evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Brady v. 

Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). 

This court may authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2255 

motion only if the movant makes a prima facie showing that his claims rely on 

either (1) “newly discovered evidence that, if proved and viewed in the 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 (2) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases 

on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 

§ 2255(h). Alferez does not rely on a new rule of constitutional law. Instead, 

he argues that “newly discovered evidence” uncovered in the course of a related 

Texas criminal proceeding “establish[es] by clear and convincing evidence that 

no reasonable factfinder would have found [him] guilty” of knowingly 

distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2252. Upon careful 

review of Alferez’s arguments and pertinent authorities, we conclude that 

Alferez has not made the required showing. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Alferez’s motion for authorization to 

file a successive § 2255 petition is DENIED. 

 Case: 15-50620 Document: 00513238001 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/20/2015