Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02151/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02151-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jacob Ramon Silva
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

 

In re: 

JACOB RAMON SILVA, 

 Movant. 

No. 15-2151 

(D.C. Nos. 1:07-CR-00787-JCH-1 & 

1:14-CV-00101-JCH-LAM) 

(D. N.M.)

 

ORDER 

 

Before GORSUCH, EBEL, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

 

 Jacob Ramon Silva seeks authorization to file a second or successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. We deny the 

motion and dismiss this proceeding. 

Mr. Silva pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of firearms and 

ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2), and was sentenced 

under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He appealed his sentence, and we affirmed 

the district court’s judgment. United States v. Ramon Silva, 608 F.3d 663, 664 

(10th Cir. 2010). He then filed a § 2255 motion, which the district court denied. He 

did not appeal from that decision. 

Mr. Silva filed another § 2255 motion in February 2014, which the district 

court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. He sought a certificate of appealability and we denied his request. 

See United States v. Silva, 568 F. App’x 559, 561 (10th Cir. 2014). 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 22, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2151 Document: 01019495141 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 1 
- 2 - 

 Mr. Silva now seeks authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion 

to challenge his sentence. He contends that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in 

Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), establishes a new rule of 

constitutional law that entitles him to authorization. In order to meet the standard for 

authorization, his second or successive claim must be based 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). We recently 

decided that the Johnson decision does not meet this standard, explaining: “[t]he 

Supreme Court has not held in one case, or in a combination of holdings that dictate 

the conclusion, that the new rule of constitutional law announced in Johnson is 

retroactive to cases on collateral review.” In re Gieswein, --- F.3d ---, 2015 WL 

5534388, at *5 (10th Cir. Sept. 21, 2015) (per curiam). 

 Because Mr. Silva has failed to meet the standard for authorization in 

§ 2255(h)(2), 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). 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

Appellate Case: 15-2151 Document: 01019495141 Date Filed: 09/22/2015 Page: 2