A ft erexami ni ng appel l ant ’ s br i ef a nd the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel * has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f

th i s a p p e a l . S e e F e d . R. Ap p . P . 3 4 ( a ) ( 2 ) a n d 1 0 th Ci r . R. 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is O r derand J udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s and j udgm ent s ; neverthel es s , an or derand j udgm entm aybe ci t ed underthe t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3.

P r i n c e wa s c o n v i c t e d o f b a n k r o b b e ry , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S . C. 1 § 2113( a) and ( d) , and unl aw ful l yus i ng a fi r earm dur i ng the comm i s s i on of a vi ol entcr i m e, i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 924( c) . See U ni t ed St at es v. Pr i nce, 9 3 8 F .2 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 3 n .3 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ). 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju ly10,2006 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT UNI T E D S T AT E S o f AM E RI CA , Pl ai nt i ff - A ppel l ee, v. ALFRED J AM ES P RI NC E, D e fe n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 06- 6043 ( D . C . N o . 0 5 - C V - 1 5 1 8 - W) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER AND J UDGM EN T * B efor e HA RTZ , EBEL and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. T h e d istri ct co u rtd en ied D efen d an t- A p p ell an t A lfred Jam es P ri n ce ’s sec o n d o r suc ce ssive 2 8 U . S . C . § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n ch all en g ing h is 19 9 0 b an k rob b ery and fi rearm con vict i on s. Pr i nce appeal s fr om t hatdeci s i on. U ndert he 1A E D P A ap p li es to this § 2 2 5 5 m o ti o n , ev en tho u g h P ri n ce ’s 2 convi ct i ons beca m e fi nal pr i ort o A E D PA ’ s enac t m ent . See U ni t ed St at es v. D a n ie ls , 2 5 4 F .3 d 1 1 8 0 , 1 1 8 4 -8 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e n b a n c ). A n tite rr o ri s m a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a lty A c t o f 1 9 9 6 (“ A E D P A ” ), h o w e v e r, a defe ndantm us tobt ai n t hi s court ’ s author i zat i on t o fi l e a s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n b e fo r e fi l i n g th a tmo t i o n i n t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t . S e e 2 8 U. S . C. 2 § 2255; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. G al l egos , 142 F. 3d 1211, 1212 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( percur i am). B eca us e Pr i nce fai l ed t o obt ai n thi s court ’ s author i zat i on fi r s t , t he di s tr i ctcourtl acke d s ubj ectm att erj ur i s di ct i on t o cons i derhi s s ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. See G al l egos , 142 F. 3d at1212; U ni t ed St at es v. A vi l a- A vi l a, 132 F. 3d 1347, 1348- 49 ( 10th C i r . 1997) ( percur i am). I n l i ghtof that , w e mustvaca t e the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on deny i ng Pr i nce’ s § 2255 m ot i on. See G al l egos , 142 F. 3d at1212. N e v e rth e les s, th is c o u rt w ill c o n stru e P rin c e ’s n o tice o f a p p e a l an d h is appel l at e br i ef f

i l ed w i th t hi s courtas an appl i cat i on t o fi l e a s ucce s s i ve § 2255 m ot i on. See i d. W e w i l l author i ze s uch a mot i on onl yi f i ti s gr ounded upon ( 1) new l ydi s cover ed evi dence that , i f pr oven and vi ew ed i n l i ghtof the evi dence as a w hol e, w oul d be s uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h bycl earand convi nci ng evi dence that no r eas onabl e fa ct fi nderw oul d have found the m ovantgui l tyof the offens e; or ( 2) a new rule o f co n s t i tut i onal l aw , m ade r etr oact i ve t o cas es on c o llate ra l re v iew b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt, t h a t w a s p re v io u sly unavai l abl e. 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 5 . Pr i nce a l l eges thatthe di s tr i ctcourtt hatt r i ed hi m on the fe der al bankr obberyand w eapons char ges l acke d j ur i s di ct i on overhi m beca us e thatcourtt ook

to o lo n g to tryh im , d e p riv in g h im o f d u e p ro c e ss a n d v io latin g th e S ix th A m en d m en t, the S p ee d yT ri al A ct, see 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 1 6 1 , O k laho m a’s U n ifo rm E xtr adi t i on A ctand the I nt er s t at e A gr eementon D et ai ner s A ct , and the Feder al R u les o f C rim in a l P ro c e d u re . F o r th e first tim e in th is p ro c e e d in g , h e a lso a ss e rts thathi s att orneyw as i neffect i ve forfai l i ng t o m ake thes e s ame ar gum ent s on di r ectappea l and t o fi l e a t i m el yhabea s pet i t i on. H avi ng thor oughl yr evi ew ed Pr i nce’ s fi l i ngs , w e conc l ude he ha s fai l ed t o m ake a pr i m a fa ci e s how i ng that s at i s fi es A E D PA ’ s cr i t er i a. See G al l egos , 142 F. 3d at1212; A vi l a- A vi l a, 132 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 . T h e se a re th e sa m e a rg u m e n ts P rin c e u n su c c e ss f u llya ss e rte d in h is fi r s t§ 2255 m ot i on. A nd Pr i nce ha s al l eged ne i thernew l ydi s cover ed evi dence nora new rul e of l aw thatw oul d appl yr etr oact i vel yt o hi s s ucce s s i ve § 2255 m o tio n . S e e G a lle g o s , 1 4 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 2 ; A v ila -A v ila , 1 3 2 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 9 . Forthes e r eas ons , w e V A C A T E t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on deny i ng Pr i nce’ s s econd ors ucce s s i ve § 2255 mot i on, and w e D E N Y hi s i m pl i ed a p p lica tio n fo r le a v e to file a su c c e ss iv e § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n in th e d istric t co u rt. A ll p e n d in g m o tio n s a re D E N IE D . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

D avi d M . E bel C i r cui tJ udge