NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION 

File Name: 18a0245n.06 

No. 17-2476 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

In re: EDWARD OMAR SPEARMAN, 

 Movant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

)

O R D E R 

 Before: GUY, DAUGHTREY, and SUTTON, Circuit Judges. 

 PER CURIAM. Edward Omar Spearman, a pro se federal prisoner, moves this court for 

an order authorizing the district court to consider a second or successive motion to vacate, set 

aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 

 In 1996, a jury convicted Spearman of participating in a continuing criminal enterprise 

(“CCE”); two counts of drug-related murder; two counts of firearm use during a felony drug 

offense; dealing in firearms without a license; conspiracy to provide false statements in 

connection with the acquisition of firearms; and conspiracy to distribute cocaine. The district 

court sentenced Spearman to three terms of life in prison for the CCE and two murder 

convictions, followed by imprisonment for 25 years to life. United States v. Spearman, No. 96-

1887, 1998 WL 840870, at *3 (6th Cir. Nov. 17, 1998). We affirmed. 

Spearman subsequently filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The 

district court denied the § 2255 motion. We granted Spearman a certificate of appealability as to 

an ineffective-assistance claim but affirmed the district court’s judgment. United States v. 

Spearman, No. 01-1378 (6th Cir. Aug. 8, 2002) (order). 
No. 17-2476 

- 2 - 

Spearman later filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), arguing that 

the district court erred when it denied his § 2255 motion without addressing one of his claims. 

The district court denied Spearman’s Rule 60(b) motion as untimely but granted him a certificate 

of appealability. We affirmed the district court’s order. Spearman v. United States, No. 07-2534 

(6th Cir. Nov. 25, 2008) (order). We also denied Spearman permission to file second or 

successive § 2255 motions on three prior occasions. In re Spearman, No. 06-1120 (6th Cir. Dec. 

11, 2006) (order); In re Spearman, No. 13-2382 (6th Cir. Apr. 17, 2014) (order); In re Spearman, 

No. 16-1899 (6th Cir. Nov. 3, 2016) (order). 

In this motion, Spearman asserts that the life sentence imposed for the CCE conviction 

amounts to cruel and unusual punishment. In support, he cites the Supreme Court decision in 

Graham v. Florida, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of a life 

sentence without the possibility of parole for a juvenile offender who committed a non-homicide 

offense. 560 U.S. 48, 74–75 (2010). Spearman explains that his indictment charged him with 

engaging in a CCE from October 1987 through 1991, and that he did not turn 18 until December 

1988. Although Spearman admittedly was 20 years old when he committed the two acts of 

murder in furtherance of the CCE—for which he also received life sentences, he asserts that the 

rule in Graham extends “to conspiracy offenses which commenced prior to a defendant’s 18th 

birthday but extended beyond his 18th birthday and of which he remained a member past this 

date.” A.R. 1 at 4. 

Before we will grant a movant permission to file a second or successive petition under 

28 U.S.C. § 2255, he must make a prima facie showing that: (1) there is newly discovered 

evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, sufficiently establishes 

that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law 

applies to his case that the Supreme Court has made retroactive to cases on collateral review. 

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2)(A), 2255(h); In re Green, 144 F.3d 384, 388 (6th Cir. 1998). 

Spearman takes the second route. He argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Graham is a new rule of constitutional law that applies retroactively to his case. 
No. 17-2476 

- 3 - 

We have no problem concluding that Graham announced a “constitutional” rule. 

Graham is about what “the Eighth Amendment forbids.” 560 U.S. at 74. And we agree that 

Graham’s rule was a “new” one. It “was certainly the first recognition that the Eighth 

Amendment bars the imposition of life imprisonment without parole on non-homicide offenders 

under age eighteen.” In re Sparks, 657 F.3d 258, 260 (5th Cir. 2011). Finally, “with the right 

combination of holdings,” the Supreme Court has made Graham’s rule “retroactive” to cases on 

collateral review. Tyler v. Cain, 533 U.S. 656, 666 (2001). Courts must give retroactive effect 

to new substantive rules, Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 307 (1989), including those “prohibiting 

a certain category of punishment for a class of defendants because of their status or offense,” 

Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302, 330 (1989). And Graham prohibited a category of punishment 

(life without parole) based on some defendants’ status (minors) and offense (nonhomicide 

crimes). 560 U.S. at 74; see Montgomery v. Louisiana, 136 S. Ct. 718, 734 (2016). 

But that’s not the end of the matter. Section 2255 requires us to certify a successive 

motion “as provided in section 2244.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). Section 2244, in turn, requires 

Spearman to show that his “claim relies on [the] new rule” in Graham. Id. § 2244(b)(2)(A) 

(emphasis added). But the “rule upon which [Spearman] relies to advance his successive habeas 

petition is not the new rule of constitutional law handed down by the Supreme Court.” In re 

Garner, 612 F.3d 533, 535 (6th Cir. 2010). 

Spearman argues that Graham’s rule should cover crimes (like conspiracies) that begin 

before, but continue into, adulthood. See In re Dale, No. 17-1547 (6th Cir. Oct. 17, 2017). The 

Supreme Court implicitly rejected that theory. It refused to consider individuals who “were 

convicted for participation in unlawful conspiracies that began when they were juveniles but 

continued after they reached the age of 18.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 64 n.* (majority opinion); id.

at 110 n.10 (Thomas, J., dissenting). Even if we could cram Spearman’s claim into a Grahamshaped wineskin, he cannot rely on Graham to obtain any relief. The Court amended its opinion 

“in light of new . . . information” from the Justice Department showing that no federal defendant 

was “serving a life without parole sentence solely for a juvenile nonhomicide crime completed 
No. 17-2476 

- 4 - 

before the age of 18.” Id. at 64 n.*; see id. (noting the “Government was not aware of any other 

federal prisoners serving life without parole sentences solely for juvenile nonhomicide crimes”) 

(emphases added). In addition to the one he challenges here, Spearman is concurrently serving 

two other life sentences for homicide crimes he committed as an adult. Graham thus is 

inapplicable to this case. 

We DENY Spearman’s motion for authorization. 

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

 Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk