Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01096/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01096-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stephen Vincent Hunt
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

STEPHEN VINCENT HUNT,

Movant.

No. 15-1096

(D.C. Nos. 1:06-CR-00155-DME-1 & 

1:10-CV-00447-DME)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER

Before BACHARACH, O’BRIEN, and McHUGH, Circuit Judges.

Stephen Vincent Hunt moves for the third time for authorization to file a 

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

sentence.1

 To obtain authorization, he must show either 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” or that there is “a new rule of 

constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme 

Court, that was previously unavailable.” Id. § 2255(h)(1), (2). Because Mr. Hunt has 

failed to show either, we deny authorization. 

 1 The orders denying Mr. Hunt’s prior two motions for authorization set forth 

his procedural history. See In re Hunt, No. 14-1049 (10th Cir. Apr. 7, 2014); In re 

Hunt, No. 13-1301 (10th Cir. July 19, 2013). 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

April 7, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1096 Document: 01019411174 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 -

Mr. Hunt argues that we should grant authorization so that he may assert a 

claim challenging the aiding and abetting instructions applicable to his firearm 

convictions under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He first proceeds under the § 2255(h)(2) 

new-law provision, citing Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), and 

then proceeds to § 2255(h)(1), asserting that no properly-instructed reasonable 

factfinder would have found him guilty. 

Section 2255(h)(2) requires “a new rule of constitutional law,” and Rosemond

does not establish a rule of constitutional law. Rather, it concerns statutory 

interpretation—what the government must show to establish a defendant aided and 

abetted a violation of § 924(c). See Rosemond, 134 S. Ct. at 1243, 1245 (holding 

government must prove that “defendant actively participated in the underlying drug 

trafficking or violent crime with advance knowledge that a confederate would use or 

carry a gun during the crime’s commission” and requiring jury instructions to state

that “defendant kn[o]w in advance that one of his cohorts would be armed”). Even if 

Rosemond could be construed as stating a rule of constitutional law, § 2255(h)(2) 

requires that the new rule be “made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the 

Supreme Court,” and “a new rule is not ‘made retroactive to cases on collateral

review’ unless the Supreme Court holds it to be retroactive,” Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 

656, 663 (2001). Rosemond states nothing about applicability on collateral review. 

Furthermore, Mr. Hunt fails to present any new evidence that a reasonable 

factfinder would not have found him guilty of any of his six § 924(c) convictions.

Appellate Case: 15-1096 Document: 01019411174 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 2 
- 3 -

Rosemond alone is not the new evidence needed to make a showing under 

§ 2255(h)(1). 

Accordingly, we deny Mr. Hunt authorization to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 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: 15-1096 Document: 01019411174 Date Filed: 04/07/2015 Page: 3