IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-10424

c/w No. 15-10488

In re: EMANUAL DELEON FIELDS,

Movant

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Consolidated With

Case No. 15-10488 

EMANUAL DELEON FIELDS,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

WILLIAM STEPHENS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent - Appellee,

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CV-3418

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 13, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-10424 Document: 00513269742 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-10424

c/w No. 15-10488

2

Before CLEMENT, ELROD, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Emanual Deleon Fields, Texas prisoner # 1127671, was convicted of 

three counts of aggravated robbery and was sentenced to 60 years of 

imprisonment. His initial 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was denied. Fields then filed a 

motion for leave to proceed on a claim of actual innocence. The district court 

construed the motion as an unauthorized successive § 2254 application and 

transferred the matter to this court. Fields now appeals the district court’s 

transfer order and also moves for authorization to file a successive § 2254 

application.

Fields sought to argue that he was actually innocent in light of facts that 

were know before trial. Therefore, the district court properly determined that 

the motion was an unauthorized successive § 2254 application. See Leal Garcia 

v. Quarterman, 573 F.3d 214, 222 (5th Cir. 2009). Fields does not challenge 

the district court’s conclusion that his motion asserting actual innocence based 

on newly discovered evidence was an unauthorized successive § 2254 

application. Because the district court properly concluded that Fields’s motion 

constituted a successive § 2254 application, it did not err in transferring the 

motion to this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); United States v. Fulton, 

780 F.3d 683, 686 (5th Cir. 2015), petition for cert. filed, (Oct. 2, 2015) (No. 15-

6348).

To obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 application based on 

a claim that was not raised in a previous § 2254 application, an applicant must 

demonstrate that the claim relies on a “new rule of constitutional law, made 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 15-10424 Document: 00513269742 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/13/2015
No. 15-10424

c/w No. 15-10488

3

retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was 

previously unavailable” or that “the factual predicate for the claim could not 

have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence” and that 

the facts, “if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for 

constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant 

guilty of the underlying offense.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2).

Fields has not shown that his claims rely on a new factual predicate or 

on a new rule of constitutional law made retroactively applicable to his case on 

collateral review. See § 2244(b)(2). Accordingly, the transfer order of the 

district court is AFFIRMED. The motion for authorization to file a successive 

§ 2254 application is DENIED.

 Case: 15-10424 Document: 00513269742 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/13/2015