Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02142/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Eric Silva
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: JOSE ERIC SILVA, 

 Movant.

No. 16-2142

(D.C. Nos. 2:02-CR-01167-LH-1 & 1:04-

CV-00998-LH-LFG)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant Jose Eric Silva, a federal prisoner proceeding through counsel, seeks an 

order authorizing him to file a second or successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the 

district court so he may assert a claim for relief based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. 

Ct. 2551 (2015).1

 See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). Because Movant has made a 

prima facie showing that he satisfies the relevant conditions for authorization under 

§ 2255(h)(2), we grant authorization.

Movant received a sentence enhanced under the guideline for career offenders, 

which is triggered by the defendant having “two prior qualifying felony convictions of 

either a crime of violence or a controlled substance offense,” United States Sentencing 

Guidelines Manual § 4B1.1(a) (U.S. Sentencing Comm’n). He alleges that at least one of 

his prior convictions qualified for this purpose by virtue of the residual clause in the 

 1 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Cori Ann Harbour-Valdez is appointed as 

counsel for Jose Eric Silva effective nunc pro tunc to the date the request for 

authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion was filed in this court.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 29, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2142 Document: 01019664884 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 1 
2

guideline’s definition of a crime of violence, which encompasses crimes that “involve[] 

conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” id. § 

4B1.2(a)(2). An identical clause in the Armed Career Criminal Act was invalidated in 

Johnson on the ground that it was unconstitutionally vague.

To obtain authorization, Movant must make a prima facie showing that his claim 

meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); see Case v. 

Hatch, 731 F.3d 1015, 1028–29 (10th Cir. 2013). A claim may be authorized under 

§ 2255(h)(2) if it relies on “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” Johnson

announced a new rule of constitutional law that was made retroactive to cases on 

collateral review in Welch v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016). We held in In 

re Encinias, 821 F.3d 1224 (10th Cir. 2016) (per curiam), that second or successive 

§ 2255 motions that rely on Johnson to challenge the career offender guideline qualify for 

authorization under § 2255(h)(2).

Accordingly, we grant Jose Eric Silva authorization to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion in district court to raise a claim based on Johnson v. United States. In the 

interest of justice, we direct the Clerk to transfer the now-authorized successive § 2255 

motion to the district court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 

The filing date of the authorized successive § 2255 motion is June 21, 2016, which is the 

Appellate Case: 16-2142 Document: 01019664884 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 2 
3

date the motion for authorization was filed in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2142 Document: 01019664884 Date Filed: 07/29/2016 Page: 3