Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-19-01033/USCOURTS-ca10-19-01033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dale Challoner
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: DALE CHALLONER, 

 Movant.

Nos. 16-1230 & 19-1033

(D.C. Nos. 1:04-CV-02067-REB & 

1:00-CR-00482-REB-2)

(D. Colo.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Movant, Dale Challoner, seeks authorization to file a second or successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion in the district court so he may challenge his convictions and 

sentences under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3). These

matters are currently abated; we now lift the abatements.

Movant was convicted of using or carrying a firearm during and in relation to a 

crime of violence or possessing a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under 

18 U.S.C. § 924(c). He alleges that the underlying offenses qualified as a “crime of 

violence” only as that term is defined in § 924(c)(3)’s residual clause. The Supreme 

Court invalidated this clause as unconstitutionally vague in United States v. Davis, 139 S. 

Ct. 2319, 2336 (2019).

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

or successive § 2255 motion meets the gatekeeping requirements of § 2255(h). 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(b)(3)(C); see also United States v. Murphy, 887 F.3d 1064, 1067 (10th Cir.), cert. 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

January 3, 2020

Christopher M. Wolpert

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 19-1033 Document: 010110283265 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 1
2

denied, 139 S. Ct. 414 (2018). In assessing this showing, we do not consider the merits 

of the second or successive motion.1

 See In re Barrett, 840 F.3d 1223, 1227 (10th Cir. 

2018); Ochoa v. Sirmons, 485 F.3d 538, 544 (10th Cir. 2007). A motion 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.” Davis announced a new rule of constitutional law that the Court made 

retroactive to cases on collateral review through the combination of its holdings in Welch 

v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1257, 1265 (2016), and Davis. See In re Mullins, 942 F.3d 

975, 979 (10th Cir. 2019).

Accordingly, we grant Movant authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 

motion in district court challenging his § 924(c) convictions and sentences under Davis. 

Entered for the Court

CHRISTOPHER M. WOLPERT, Clerk

 1 In limiting our consideration of this motion to the requirements of § 2255(h), we 

do not consider the existence or applicability of any plea-agreement waiver that may have 

been executed. We leave that and other merits considerations for the district court.

Appellate Case: 19-1033 Document: 010110283265 Date Filed: 01/03/2020 Page: 2