Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08054/USCOURTS-ca10-16-08054-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jared Lincoln Fitzgerald
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: JARED LINCOLN FITZGERALD, 

 Movant.

No. 16-8054

(D.C. Nos. 2:16-CV-00092-NDF & 

2:06-CR-00227-CAB-1)

(D. Wyo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Jared Lincoln Fitzgerald seeks authorization to file a second or successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We deny authorization.

We may authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2255 motion if it 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); see also id. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(C). Mr. Fitzgerald asserts that he was sentenced as a career offender under 

U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 and seeks to challenge his sentence based on the new rule of 

constitutional law announced in Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). 

In Johnson, the Supreme Court held that “imposing an increased sentence under 

the residual clause of the Armed Career Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s 

guarantee of due process.” 135 S. Ct. at 2563. And in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 

1257, 1268 (2016), the Court held that Johnson announced a new substantive rule that 

applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. We recently extended Johnson’s reach 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

June 15, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-8054 Document: 01019638529 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 1 
2

to § 4B1.1 for purposes of a motion for authorization because the residual clause in 

§ 4B1.1 mirrors the one declared unconstitutional in Johnson. See In re Encinias, 

___ F.3d ___, 2016 WL 1719323, at *2 (10th Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) (per curiam).

Upon consideration of his motion, we conclude that Mr. Fitzgerald has failed to 

make a prima facie showing that the successive claims he seeks to bring are based on the 

new rule of constitutional law announced in Johnson. Under current law, the Johnson

decision would not change his sentence and his proposed claim under the Fair Sentencing 

Act (which perhaps could change his sentence) is premature. Because he has not made 

the prima facie showing required for authorization under § 2255(h)(2), we deny the

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: 16-8054 Document: 01019638529 Date Filed: 06/15/2016 Page: 2