N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT DOM INIC DEAN ADAM S, Pe titione r, v. UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A, R

e sponde n t . No. 13-72158

ORDER *

Applic a tion to File

Se c ond or Suc c e ssive Pe tition Under 28 U.S.C . § 2255 Argue d a nd Subm itte d July

7, 2014 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s . Dom inic De an Ada

m s is a fe de ra l prisone r who ple a de d guilty to two c ounts of m urde r and to two c o unts of a ssa ulting a fe de ra l de te ntion offic e r. Ada m s wa s a m inor whe n he c om

m itte d the se c rim e s. He wa s se nte n c e d to c o nse c utive prison te rm s of 396 m onths for them urde r c ha rge s and 120 m onths for thea s sa ult c ha rge s— 43 y e ars tota l. 

# FIL ED JUL 15 2014 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.In 2013, thedistric t c ourt de nie d Ada m s’ s two substa

ntia lly ide ntic a l pro se m otions under 28 U.S.C . § 2255. Ada m s ha s now file d a

n a pplic at ion for le ave to file a se c ond or suc c e ssive § 2255 m otion to va c at e , se t a side , or c orre c t his se nte nc e . W e have jurisdic tion unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2255(h). W e m a y grant a uthoriz a tion to file

a se c ond or suc c e ssive § 2255 m otion if the a pplic a t ion m ake s a

prim a fa c ie showing tha

t the m otion c onta ins “ a

ne w rule of c onstitutiona

l la w, m a de re troa c tive to c a s e s on c olla te ra l re vie w by

the Supre m e C ourt, tha

t wa s pre viously

una va i la ble .” 28 U.S.C . § 2255(h)(2); id. § 2244(b)(3)(C ). A prim a fa c ie showing m e ans “ a suffic ie nt showing of possible m e rit to wa

rra nt a fulle r e xplora

tion by the distric t

c o urt.” W

oratze c k v . Ste w art , 118 F.3d 648, 650 (9th C ir. 1997) (pe r c uriam ) (quoting Be nne tt v . Unite d State s , 119 F.3d 468, 469 (7th C ir. 1997)). Adam s c onte nds tha

t his se nte nc e is c ontra

ry to Mille r v . Alabama , 132 S. C t. 2455 (2012), which he ld tha t “ m andatory

life without pa

role for those unde r the a ge of 18 a

t the tim e of the ir c rim e s viola te s the Eighth Am e ndm e nt’ s prohibition on ‘ c rue l a

nd unusua l punishm e nts.’ ” Id. a t 2460. Eve n a s sum ing tha t Mille r announc e d a

ne w, re troa c t ive rule , Ada m s ’ s a pplic a tion would fail be c a u se Mille r is ina pplic a ble to Ada

m s’ s c a se . He nc e , we ne e d not de c ide whe t he r Mille r is re troa c tive . 2Mille r is ina p plic a ble be c a use Ada m s “ wa s not se nte nc e d to life without the possibility

of pa role pursua

nt to a m andatory

se nte nc ing sc he m e .” Se e Be ll v . Uribe , 748 F.3d 857, 869 (9th C ir. 2013). Thetra nsc ript of Ada

m s’ s se nte nc ing he aring de m onstra

te s tha t the distric t c ourt e x e rc ise d its se n te nc ing disc re t ion a fte r c onside ring se ve ra l m itiga ting a nd a ggrav a ting fa c tors; it we ighe d Ada m s’ s

“ de plora ble c hildhood”a ga inst his prior c rim ina l history and his “ tota l indiffe re nc e to life .” Se e id. at 870 (“ B e c a use the se nte nc ing judgedid c onside r both m i tiga ting and a ggravating fa c tors unde r a se nte nc ing sc he m e tha

t a ffords disc re tion a

nd le nie nc y , the re [wa s ] no viola tion of Mille r .” ). Ac c ordingly , Ada m s fa ils to m ake

“ a suffic ie nt showing of possible m e rit to wa

rrant a fulle r e xplora

tion by the distric t c o urt.” Se e W

oratze c k , 118 F.3d a

t 650 (c ita

tion om itte d). The a pplic a tion to file

a se c o nd or suc c e ssive m o tion unde r § 2255 is DE NIE D .

3