Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02132/USCOURTS-ca10-15-02132-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Daryl Wayne Wilkerson
Petitioner

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_________________________________

In re: DARYL WAYNE WILKERSON, 

 Petitioner.

No. 15-2132

(D.C. No. 2:00-CR-00557-LH-2)

(D. N.M.)

_________________________________

ORDER

_________________________________

Before GORSUCH, HOLMES, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________

Daryl Wayne Wilkerson seeks authorization to file a second or successive 

28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Because Mr. Wilkerson cannot meet the requisite conditions 

for authorization, we deny the motion and dismiss this proceeding.

Mr. Wilkerson was convicted of aiding and abetting possession with intent to 

distribute more than five grams of cocaine base. He challenged his conviction on 

appeal, but we affirmed the district court’s judgment. See United States v. Wilkerson, 

26 F. App’x 878, 879 (10th Cir. 2002). Mr. Wilkerson then filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion to vacate, which the district court denied. He sought a certificate of appealability 

to appeal from the district court’s decision, but we denied his request. See United States 

v. Wilkerson, 133 F. App’x 564, 565 (10th Cir. 2005).

Mr. Wilkerson 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 Johnson, the Supreme Court held 

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

August 20, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-2132 Document: 01019478660 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 1 
2

that “imposing an increased sentence under the residual clause of the Armed Career 

Criminal Act violates the Constitution’s guarantee of due process.” Id. at 2563. 

In order to meet the standard for authorization, however, the 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) (emphasis added). We have explained that “a new rule is made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review only when the Supreme Court explicitly holds that the rule it 

announced applies retroactively to such cases.” Bey v. United States, 399 F.3d 1266, 

1268 (10th Cir. 2005). Because the Supreme Court has not held that the Johnson

decision applies retroactively to cases on collateral review, Mr. Wilkerson has not met 

the standard for authorization in § 2255(h)(2). 

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).

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 15-2132 Document: 01019478660 Date Filed: 08/20/2015 Page: 2