FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 27, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 08 -135 98 -P

________________________ I N RE: M A RK D EA N SCH W A B, P et i t i on er .

__________________________ A ppl i c a t i on f

orL e a ve t o F i l e aS e c ond orS uc c e s s i ve H abe a s C orpus P e t i t i on, 28 U . S . C . § 2244( b)

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2008) B efo re: D U B IN A , C A RN E S an d H U L L , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M : M ark D ean S chw ab w as se nt ence d t o d ea th for the rape and m urder of an e l e ve n- y e a r - ol d boy . T he f a c t s a nd the pr oc e dur a l hi s t ory of the c a s e thr ough the t i m e w e a ff

i rm ed the deni al of hi s f eder al habeas pet i t i on ar e c on t ai ned i n S chw ab v . C r o s b y , 4 5 1 F .3 d 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) , c e rt. d e n ie d , 1 2 7 S . C t. 1 1 2 6 ( 2 0 0 7 ) . W e l at ervaca t ed a s t aythathe had o bt ai ned i n con nect i on w i th a l aw sui the fi l ed2

u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . S c h w ab v . S e c ’y , D e p ’t o f C o rr s ., 5 0 7 F .3 d 1 2 9 7 ( 1 1 th C i r. 20 07 ). S c hw ab i s now be f

or e us w i th a n appl i c a t i on f orpe rm i s s i on t o f

i l e as e c ond o rs u c c e s s iv e h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . T h e s o le gr ound putf

orw a r d i n the appl i c a t i on i s ba s e d on a s s e rt i ons tha tS c hw ab’ s pr e s e nt a tt orne y s ha ve pe r s ua de d D r . W i l l i a m R . S a m e k, ac l i ni c a l ps y c hol ogi s tw ho te s tif ie d f o rth e S ta te a t th e s e n te n c e h e a r in g , S c h w ab , 4 5 1 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 7

– 1 8 , to change hi s opi ni on abou tsom e a spec t s of S chw ab’ s m ent al and em ot i on al p ro b l em s. T h e ap p l i cat i o n d escri b es D r. S am ek ’ s p art i al ch an g e o f o p i n i o n as a “clarifica ti o n o f h is o rig in al trial t es ti m o n y.” I t ass er ts th at clar ificatio n g iv es “a m or e c om pl e t e pi c tur e of M r . S c hw ab’ s m e nt a l a nd e m ot i ona l de ve l opm e nt , ” a nd i t“ es t abl i shes new l y di sc ov er ed st atut ory m i t i gat i ng evi dence thates t abl i shes S chw ab i s i nn ocentof the death p enal ty. ” T he appl i c a t i on f

a l l s f a rs hortof

m e e t i ng the r e qui r e m e nt s of § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B ) . S c h w ab c a n n o t s h o w th a t “th e f a c tu a l p r e d ic a te f

o rth e c la im coul d n othave been di sc ov er ed previ ou sl y throu gh the exerc i se of du e di l i gence. ” 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 4(b)(2)(B)(i ). T he appl i ca t i on m akes cl ear thatthe basi s f or D r. S a m e k ’s m o d if

ic a tio n o f

o p in io n is “h is r e c e n t r e v ie w o f M r . S c h w ab ’s c a s e ,” w hi ch consi st ed of “ a m ore e xh aust i ve re vi ew of the re cord, eval uat i on of M r.3

S chw ab, and i nt ervi ew s w i th fam i l y m em bers . ” A l l of tho se source s of e vi dence, a n d a n y c h a n g e th e y c o u ld b r in g in D r . S a m e k ’s o p in io n , w e r e f u lly a v a ilab le to S c h w ab a t th e tim e h e f ile d h is f ir s t h ab e a s p e titio n in A p r il 2 0 0 3 . E ve n i f the m odi f

i c a t i on i n D r . S a m e k’ s opi ni on m e tthe r e qui r e m e nt s of c l aus e ( i ) of

§ 2244( b) ( 2) ( B ) , i tw oul d s t i l l notm e e tthos e of c l aus e ( i i ) . A s the t e xtof § 2244( b) ( 2) ( B ) ( i i ) pl a i nl y pr ovi de s , the f a c t s unde r l y i ng the c l a i m m us tbe

“ suff i ci entt o est abl i sh by cl ear and conv i nci ng evi dence that , bu tfor c on st i tut i on al e rr or , no r e a s onabl e f

a c t f i nde rw oul d ha ve f

ound the appl i c a ntgui l ty of the un derl yi ng offe nse. ” S chw ab’ s app l i ca t i on do es no tas se rta c on st i tut i on al error, ju s t ac h a n g e in th e o p in io n o f a n e x p e rt w itn e s s . M or e ove r , the a s s e rt e d c ha nge i n opi ni on goe s t o the e xi s t e nc e of m i t i ga t i ng ci rc um st ance s, no tt o w hether S chw ab i s gui l ty of the un derl yi ng offe nse. S ee In r e D i a z , 4 7 1 F. 3 d 1 2 6 2 , 1 2 6 3

– 6 4 ( 1 1 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 ) ( d e n y i n g § 2 2 4 4 ( b ) ( 2 ) ( B) appl i ca t i on w here the pet i t i on eras se rt ed “ new evi dence” w ou l d h ave “ i m pact ed the j ury r e c om m e nda t i on a tthe pe na l ty pha s e by unde rm i ni ng the w e i ghtof the a ggr a va t or s pr e s e nt e d a ttr i a l , a nd a ddi ng t o the w e i ghtof m i t i ga t i on” but“ [ di d] not , a nd c oul d not , s ugge s ttha tthe a l l e ge d ne w e vi de nc e w oul d ha ve a l t e r e d the j ury f i ndi ng on hi s gui l tof

the unde r l y i ng of

f e ns e ” ) ; s e e a l s o I n r e D e a n, 341 F . 3d4

12 47 , 12 48 –4 9 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ) ( denyi ng § 2 25 5 ¶ 8 app l i ca t i on thatchal l enged se nt ence bu tno tw hether pet i t i on erw as gu i l ty of the un derl yi ng offe nse) . AP P L I CA T I ON DE NI E D.