Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02239/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02239-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lonnie Ray Wiseman
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: LONNIE RAY WISEMAN, 

 Movant.

No. 16-2239

(D.C. Nos. 1:00-CV-01383-JEC-LCS &

1:96-CR-00072-JEC-2)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and O’BRIEN, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Lonnie Ray Wiseman seeks authorization to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255 motion. For the following reasons, we deny authorization.

Mr. Wiseman seeks to challenge his two 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) convictions for using 

a firearm during a crime of violence. We affirmed his convictions and sentences on 

direct appeal, United States v. Wiseman, 172 F.3d 1196, 1217, 1220 (10th Cir. 1999) 

(Wiseman I), but remanded for resentencing on the first § 924(c) conviction in a § 2255 

proceeding, United States v. Wiseman, 297 F.3d 975, 982-83 (10th Cir. 2002). 

In June 2016, Mr. Wiseman filed a motion for authorization seeking to challenge 

his § 924(c) convictions based on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Johnson v. 

United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). That case (No. 16-2152) is currently abated 

pending further order of this court. 

Mr. Wiseman now has filed another motion for authorization to file a second or 

successive § 2255 motion. We may authorize the filing of a second or successive § 2255 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 29, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2239 Document: 01019742249 Date Filed: 12/29/2016 Page: 1 
2

motion only if the movant makes a prima facie showing that his motion satisfies the 

statutory requirements for authorization. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(C), 2255(h). As is 

relevant here, Mr. Wiseman must show that his proposed successive claim relies on “a 

new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the 

Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Id. § 2255(h)(2). He relies on 

Rosemond v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1240 (2014), which abrogated Wiseman I. 

Rosemond, however, does not satisfy § 2255(h)(2). It is not a rule of 

constitutional law; instead, it addresses statutory interpretation. See Montana v. Cross, 

829 F.3d 775, 782 (7th Cir.), petition for cert. filed (U.S. Dec. 16, 2016) (No. 16-775). 

Further, the Supreme Court has not made it retroactively applicable to cases on collateral 

review. See Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 663 (2001) (“[T]he Supreme Court is the only 

entity that can ‘ma[k]e' a new rule retroactive. The new rule becomes retroactive, not by 

the decisions of the lower court or by the combined action of the Supreme Court and the 

lower courts, but simply by the action of the Supreme Court.” (alteration in original)). 

The motion for authorization is denied. 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: 16-2239 Document: 01019742249 Date Filed: 12/29/2016 Page: 2 
3

No. 16-2239, In re Wiseman

HARTZ, J., concurring.

This panel is deciding the motion presented to the court, as it is presented. But 

Mr. Wiseman’s claim may not be subject to the restrictions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) 

because the district court entered an amended judgment after this court’s remand in his 

first § 2255 proceeding. If, as appears to be the case, he did not file any § 2255 motions 

after the entry of that amended judgment, perhaps the present claim may be properly 

treated as an initial § 2255 motion. See Magwood v. Patterson, 561 U.S. 320, 341-42 

(2010).

Appellate Case: 16-2239 Document: 01019742249 Date Filed: 12/29/2016 Page: 3