Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-10-03039/USCOURTS-ca10-10-03039-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jermell Ferguson
Petitioner

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 18, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

JERMELL FERGUSON,

Movant.

No. 10-3039

ORDER

Before TACHA, LUCERO, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

Jermell Ferguson, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks authorization to

file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct

his sentence. Because Mr. Ferguson does not meet the conditions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h), we deny authorization and dismiss the proceeding.

In December 2006, Mr. Ferguson pleaded guilty to two counts of distribution

of cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). In May 2007, he was

sentenced to an 84-month term of imprisonment. Mr. Ferguson did not file a direct

appeal from his conviction or sentence. Subsequently, his sentence was reduced to

a 70-month term of imprisonment after the district court granted his 18 U.S.C.

§ 3582(c)(2) motion. In May 2009, Mr. Ferguson filed a § 2255 motion, arguing he

received ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing. The district court

dismissed the motion as untimely and then denied Mr. Ferguson’s request for a

certificate of appealability. 

Appellate Case: 10-3039 Document: 01018369676 Date Filed: 02/18/2010 Page: 1
-2-

Mr. Ferguson now seeks leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion

to bring a new claim that his counsel was ineffective in advising him to enter a

guilty plea. He also asserts again that he received ineffective assistance of counsel

at sentencing. In order to receive authorization, he must show there is either: 

(1) 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

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.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). While Mr. Ferguson acknowledges these standards in his

motion for authorization, see Mot. for Auth. at 1, he fails to discuss any newly

discovered evidence or new rule of constitutional law to support the successive

§ 2255 claims he seeks to file, see id. at 1-16. Accordingly, because

Mr. Ferguson’s motion does not meet the requirements for authorization under

§ 2255(h), his motion is DENIED. This denial of authorization is not 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: 10-3039 Document: 01018369676 Date Filed: 02/18/2010 Page: 2