Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01066/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01066-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Johnny Scott Warren
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: 

JOHNNY SCOTT WARREN, 

 Movant. 

No. 15-1066 

(D.C. No. 1:07-CR-00354-CMA-1) 

(D. Colo.)

 

ORDER 

 

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

 

 Johnny Scott Warren moves for authorization to file a second or successive 

motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We deny the motion. 

 Mr. Warren was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm and of 

possessing with intent to distribute a substance containing cocaine base. He had been 

on parole when parole officers and police officers discovered the firearm and drugs 

during a home visit and resulting search of his residence. Mr. Warren sought to 

suppress the evidence, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. 

On direct appeal, we upheld the validity of the search and affirmed his convictions. 

See United States v. Warren, 566 F.3d 1211, 1212-13 (10th Cir. 2009). He 

subsequently filed a motion to vacate under § 2255, which the district court denied. 

We denied his request for a certificate of appealability. See United States v. Warren, 

393 F. App’x 567, 568 (10th Cir. 2010). 

 To obtain authorization, Mr. Warren must show his proposed § 2255 motion 

relies on “(1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

March 13, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1066 Document: 01019398140 Date Filed: 03/13/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

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). 

 Mr. Warren argues that, viewing the facts in light of the evidence, no 

reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty of the underlying offense. But he 

does not provide any “newly discovered evidence,” as required by § 2255(h). 

Instead, he challenges again the legality of the search and the resulting admission of 

the evidence from the search. 

 Mr. Warren has failed to meet the standards for authorization in § 2255(h). 

Accordingly, we deny his 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). We note that this is Mr. Warren’s third 

motion for authorization and his second request this year. We caution Mr. Warren 

that further attempts to obtain authorization without meeting the requirements in 

§ 2255(h) could result in sanctions. 

 Entered for the Court 

 ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-1066 Document: 01019398140 Date Filed: 03/13/2015 Page: 2