Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02136/USCOURTS-ca10-16-02136-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William P. Pyle
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: WILLIAM P. PYLE, 

 Movant.

No. 16-2136

(D.C. Nos. 1:96-CV-01762-JEC-JHG &

1:91-CR-00545-JB-1)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before KELLY, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant William P. Pyle, 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). In 1992, Movant was 

convicted of a firearms offense in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He alleges that his 

sentence for that offense was enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) 

based on his having three qualifying prior convictions, see 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1), at least 

one of which was a violent felony. Movant now seeks to file a § 2255 motion 

challenging his enhanced sentence based on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Johnson, 

which invalidated the residual clause in the ACCA’s definition of “violent felony” as 

unconstitutionally vague.

 1 Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A, Todd A. Coberly is appointed as counsel for 

William P. Pyle 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 22, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 16-2136 Document: 01019661568 Date Filed: 07/22/2016 Page: 1 
2

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

meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C). 

Relevant here is the requirement that the claim rely on “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)(2). Based on the information before us, we conclude 

that the Movant has made the required showing. Johnson announced a new rule of 

constitutional law, and the Supreme Court made Johnson retroactive to cases on 

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

Accordingly, we lift the abatement and grant William P. Pyle authorization to file 

a second or successive § 2255 motion in the 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 16, 2016, which is the date the motion for authorization was filed 

in this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Movant’s request for counsel, construed as a motion 

for appointment of counsel, is denied as moot.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 16-2136 Document: 01019661568 Date Filed: 07/22/2016 Page: 2