### INTHE U NI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 11039

I n r e : BRUCE CARNEI L W EBS TE R, M o v a n t.

O n M o tio n fo r A u th o r iz a tio n to F ile S u cces si ve 28 U
. S

. C

. § 2255 M ot i on i n t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ct C ou rt f ort he N or t her n D i st r i c t of Texas

B ef ore SM ITH , W IE N E R , an d P R A D O , C i rcui t Ju dg es. JE R R YE
. SM ITH , C i rcui t Ju dg e:
B ruce W ebsterm oves f or an orde ra ut ho r i z i ng t he di s t ri ct court t o consi der
a s ucc es si ve m ot i on t o v ac at e hi s fede r aldeat h se nt enc e under 28 U
. S. C

. § 2255,
as am en ded b y sect i on 1 05 of t h e A n t i t error i sm an d E f fect i ve D eath P en al t y A ct of 199 6 ( “A E D P A ” )

. B ecau se he does n ot m eet t h e procedu ralrequi rem en t s of § 2 25 5(h) , w e de ny t he m o t i o n.
I
. I n June 19 96 , W e bs t e r w as s e nt e nc e d t o de at h f o r hi s r o l e i n t he ki dna pi ng

United States Court of A pp eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 28, 2010 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

Webster’ s ex ecutionis stay ed fo r re ason s no t re late d to the insta nt motion
. 1 2 and b r ut alm ur de r o f a s i xt e e n- ye ar - o l d gi r l
. H e f i l e d a di r e c t a ppe alo f hi s c o nvi c t i o n, i nc l udi ng am o ng hi s ni ne t e e n a s s i gnm e nt s o f e r ro r a c hal l e nge t o t he di st ri ct cou rt ’ s f

i n di n g t h at h e w as not m en t al l y ret arded
. W e af f i rm ed i n al lres p e c ts
. Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ebst er , 1 6 2 F .3 d 3 0 8 , 3 5 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ), cer t
. den i ed 528 U
. S

. 829 ( 199 9)

. H e t h en f i l ed f or r el i ef un der § 2255 , w h i ch m ot i on t h e di st ri ct court den i ed, concl u di n g t h at, even i n t h e w ak e of A tk in s v . V irg in ia , 536 U .S . 3 0 4 (2 0 0 2 ), th e e v id e n c e s u p p o r te d a fin d in g th a t W e b s te r w a s n o t m e n ta lly
r e ta r d e d
. W

ebst er v. Un i t ed S t ate s , N o. 4: 00- C V

- 1646- Y , 2003 W L 23109787, at *1 4 ( N
. D
. T ex . S ep t. 3 0 , 2 0 0 3 ). A n d , after the distri ct cou rt gra n ted a ce rti fi ca te
o f ap p e a la b il ity on tw o of th e is su e s co n ce rn in g m e n ta l re ta rd a tion , w e a g a in a ffir m e d th e s e n te n c e . Un i t ed S t ate s v. W ebst er , 4 2 1 F .3d 3 0 8 , 3 1 0 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 5 ),
cer t
. den i ed , 5 4 9 U .S

. 8 2 8 (20 0 6 ). N o w W e bs t e r a s ks f

o r a no t he r c hanc e t o a r gue t hathe i s m e nt al l y r e t ar ded and t her ef

or e i nel i gi bl e f

orthe deat h penal t y. S pec i f i c al l y, he c ont ends t hat 1 i n l i gh t of

new l y di scovered evi den ce SS i n the f orm of govern m en t an d school rec o r ds a nd a ddi t i o nalt e s t i m o ny SS no r e as o nab l e fac t f i nde r c o ul d c o nc l ude t hathe i s no t m e nt al l y r e t ar de d.

II. S ect i on 225 5( h ) governs the f i l i n g of sec on d or succes si ve m ot i on s: A s e c o n d o r s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n m u s t b e ce r tifie d a s p r o v id e d in s e c t i on 2 24 4 bya pa ne lo f t he a ppr o pr i at e c o ur t o f a ppe al s t o c o nta in

SS ( 1) ne wl y d i s c o v e r e d e v i d e n c e t h a t , i f p r o v e n a nd v iew e d in li g h t o f th e e v id e n ce a s a w h o le, w o u ld b e su ff i ci e n t t o est abli sh by cl ear an d conv i n ci n g evi den ce t hatno r e as o nab l e fac t f i nde r w o ul d ha ve f

o und t he m ovan t gu i l t y of

t h e of fen se; or Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

N orh av e weh a d oc ca si ont o co n si de r th a t qu es ti on with re g a rd to2 8U .S .C

. § 2 2 4 4 (b )- 2 (2)(B)(ii), whichinclu des the same language. Secti on 225 5 gov erns coll ater al attacks onfede ral convicti ons; § 2244 , attacks on state court conviction s. Neve rthe less, “[b]ecau se of the similarity of the actio ns under[these section s], they have tr aditionallybe en read inp ar i ma t er ia where the cont ext doe s no t indicate that would be imprope r.” Unit ed States v. Flores , 13 5 F .3d 1 0 0 0 , 1 0 0 2 n .7( 5 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8). See § 2 2 5 5 (h)( 2 ). 3 3

( 2) a new r ul e o f

c ons t i t ut i onall aw , m ade r et r oac t i ve t o c as es on c ol l at er alrev i ew by t he Suprem e Court , t hat w as previ ou sl y u n ava i l able. 2 8 U .S .C

. § 2 2 5 5 (h ). Thi s c o ur t ha s not had oc c as i o n t o co ns i de r w he t he r a pe t i t i o ne r s e e ki ng onl y t o c hal l enge hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or t he deat h penal t y c an do so u n d er § 2255- ( h ) ( 1)

. W e n ow concl u de t h at a peti t i on er can n ot bri n g a successi ve cl ai m un der

2 § 2 2 5 5 (h )(1 ) w h e r e h e d o e s n o t a s s e r t th a t th e n e w ly d is c o v e r e d e v id e n c e w o u ld
n e g a te h is g u ilt o f th e o ffe n s e o f w h ic h h e w a s co n v ic te d , i
. e. , capi t al m u rder. T h at resul t i s com pel l ed by t h e pl ai n l an gu age of § 225 5( h ) ( 1) , w h i ch does
no t e nc o m pa s s c hal l e nge s t o a se nt e nc e . I ns t e ad , i t st at e s t hata pe t i t i o ne r w i s hi n g to re l y o n n ew l y d i scov ere d ev i d en ce (as d i sti n gu i s h e d f rom be i n g a b l e to poi nt t o a qual i f

yi ng new r ul e of c ons t i t ut i onall aw ) t o s upporta s ec ond § 2255 3
m oti on m u st “estab l i sh b y cl ea r a n d con vin ci n g e vid en ce th a t no rea son a b l e factfi n d er w ou l d h a ve fou n d the m ov a n t gu i l ty of t h e of f ense . ” § 2255(h) ( 1) ( em phasis a d d e d ). W ebs t erneve r t he l ess urg es us t o r ead “ of fens e” br oadl y s o t hat § 2255- ( h ) ( 1) w ou l d cover not onl y a cl ai m t h at a pri soner i s n ot gu i l t y of t h e of fen se of
c o n v ic tio n bu t also a claim tha t he i s m ere l y “n ot gu i l ty of t h e d ea th pe n a lty .” Su c h an i nt er pre t at i on ac c or ds wi t h p r i o rh a b e a s c o r pus l aw i nt er pre t i ng “ ac t ual i n n oce n ce” to i n cl u d e “i n n oce n ce of the de a th pe n a lty. ” Cf

. S aw yer v. W

h i t l ey , 50 5 U
. S. 3 33 , 3 40

- 41 ( 19 92 )

. But , a s J udg e Po s ne r c o ge nt l y e xp l ai ne d, Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

See also I

n re Dean , 3 4 1 F .3d 1 247, 124 8 -4 9( 1 1 thC ir
. 2 0 0 3 ); Inre Jon es , 13 7 F .3d 4 1 2 7 1 , 1 2 7 4( 1 1 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8); Bu rris v. Park e , 1 3 0 F .3 d 7 8 2 , 7 8 5 (7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7); B urris v. P arke , 1 1 6 F .3 d 2 5 6 , 2 5 8( 7 thC ir
. 1 9 9 7); Inre Medina , 10 9F. 3 d 15 5 6 , 15 6 5 -6 6(11 thCir. 1 9 9 7), overruled onot her gro unds by Ste wart v. Mart inez-Villareal , 52 3 U.S. 637 (199 8). Two othe r circuit s a ddre sse d th e is su e b u t avoi de d de ci di n git. See LaF evers v. Gibson , 23 8 F .3d 1 263 , 12 67 (10thC ir. 2 001 ) (“[T]hereis a split amon g the thre e circuits that h av e a ddressed the que stion

. . . . Thiscourtne edn otr es olv e th at diff ic u ltqu es ti on. . . . ”) ; I n re Vial , 115 F.3 d 11 92, 119 8 n.12 (4th Ci r . 1 997) (enbanc) (“We nee d n ot a ddress th e questi on of whe ther , un der the AE DPA, an indivi dualsubje ct toa sente nce of deathmay assert the exi stenceof new evi dence es tab li shin g th at th e se nte n ce wa s im po se d im prop erly , i.e. , that he is “inno cent” of the death pe n alty .”). Bythiswe dono t me a nt o su g g es t th a t ap ri so n eri s j u ri sdic ti on allyb a rr edf ro m s ee k- 5 ing suc cessive revi ew wher e h e co ntests a factual pr edicate o f hi s capital murder convicti on, with out whichhewouldhav e b ee nguiltyonlyof n on -c a pital murd er . Cf. Tho mpson v. Calderon , 1 5 1 F .3 d 9 1 8 , 9 2 3 -2 4( 9 thC ir
. 1 9 9 8) (e nb a n c)

. Cf. , e. g. , 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b) (“If the c ourtfin ds that th e j udg ment was ren dered with- 6 out jurisdiction , or that th e sen te nce imposed was no t auth oriz ed b y law or othe rwise o pen to (c onti n u ed
.. .) 4 C o u r ts th a t b e fo r e th e a m e n d m e n t h a d to d e c id e w h e th e r a n a p p licat i on f or post convic t i on rel i ef cam e w i t h i n t h e “ act u al i n n ocence” excepti on t o t h e requi rem en t of provi n g cau se an d p rej u di ce i n order t o b e pe r m i t t ed t o r evi ve a w ai ved gr ound f orr el i ef ex t ended t he e xcepti on t o sentenci n g i ssues . . . . B u t w e do n ot t h i n k the excepti on s ur vi ve s t he a m e ndm e nt
. The “ act u al i nno c e nc e ” e xc e pt i o n o f t he p r io r la w w a s ju d g e -m a d e , a n d s o it s co n to u r s w e r e a p p r o p r ia te ly ju d g e -fa s h io n e d a n d p e r m is s ib ly ju d g e -e x p a n d e d
. T h e e x c e p tio n in t he ne w l aw i s g r av e n i n s t at ut o r y l ang uag e t hatc o ul d no t b e a ny c l e ar e r . W he n w e c o ns i de r . . . t he a bs e nc e o f a ny i ndi c at i o n i n t he l egi sl at i ve hi st or y t hat ‘ of fens e’ w as bei ng use d i n so m e sp eci al sense di f

ferent f rom it s ordi n ary m ean i n g, w e t h i n k i t hi gh l y u n l i kel y t hat C ongr es s i nt ended t he w or d t o b eara s pec i alm eani ng. Hope v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 1 0 8 F .3d 1 1 9 , 1 2 0 (7t h C ir. 1 9 9 7 ) ( P o sn e r, J .)

. 4 That i s t o s ay , t he r e i s no r e as o n t o b e l i e ve t hatCong r e s s i nt e nde d t he l anguage “ gui l t y o f

t he o f fense” to m ea n “e l i gi bl e f ora de at h se nt enc e. ” H ad 5 C on gr e ss w an t ed the provi si on t o cover cha l l en ges t o a sentence
SS e v e n if o n ly t o a death sen t en ce SS i t e as i l y c o ul d hav e r e fe r e nc e d s e nt e nc e s e xp l i c i t l y i n t he t ext, as i t di d n u m erous t i m es t h rough ou t § 225 5. O r i f C on gress h ad i n t en ded 6 Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

(...continu ed) 6 coll ater al att a c k, o rth atth e r eh a s b e e ns u c had e ni alo ri nf ri n g e m e nto f

th ec o n s t it u t i o n al rights of the prisone r as to rende r the j udg ment vulne rab le to c oll ater al attack, thecourt sh all vacatean d set the ju dgment a side and shall di schar geth e prison er or res en t en ceh imor grant a n ew tri al or correctt he sentencea s m aya pp ear a pp ro priate
. ( E mp h a si s a dd ed .) ). Or, inde ed, “eli gible for the deathpen alty ,” per Sawyer , 5 0 5 U .S

. a t 3 3 6
. See Tho mp- 7 son , 151 F.3d at 92 3 (noti ngthat the differe nce be tween the lan gu age i n Sawyer an d th e l angu a g e in§ 2 2 4 4 (b )( 2 )( B)(ii) co u ldsu g g es t th a t C on gre ss ch os e tod eviatef ro m it)

. Our decisi on that th e i nstant motion is beyond thereach of § 22 55 is j uri sdictio nalin 8 nature, go ing

to the ability of the distric t court and this court toentertain the § 2 255moti on in the first instance. Th e re sult makes it u nne cessaryfor this court toaddress whe ther , as the gove rnment claims, the evi dencethat Web ster se eks to introduceis neithern ewlydiscove red nor substa ntive. 5 t o si gn al court s t o i n corporat e the ol d, broad i n t erpret ati on of act u al i n n ocence, i t w ellcou l d h a ve u s e d t h e w ord s, “actu a li n n oce n ce.” Inste a d , i t el ected to 7
c o uc h § 2 25 5(h) ( 1) , a s w e l las § 224 4(b) ( 2) ( B) ( i i ) , i n t he m ar ke dl y di f fe r e nt , unm ista k a b le te rm s o f gu i l t of t h e of f ense . A bsen t som e indic ati on t h at C on gress
m e ant f o r t he l ang uag e i n § 22 55 ( h) ( 1) no t t o b e t ak e n l i t e r al l y, w e de c l i ne t o i nt er pre t i t any o t her w ay. I n s um m ar y, W e bs t e r ’ s a ppl i c at i o n do e s no t s at i s f y § 2 25 5(h) ( 1) , a nd § 2 255( h) ( 2) i s i nappl i c abl e. The m ot i on foraut hor i zat i on t o f i l e a s ucc es si ve § 2 2 5 5 mo t i o n i s DE NI ED
. 8 Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

Althou gh Web ster’s coun sel requ ested theseSoc ialSec urity recor ds lo ngbe fore his 1 trial, th eywere only recentlypro duced. An d, whenWebster sought additional di scov eryin conne cti on wi th his firs t habeas peti tio n, thedis tri ct co urtdeniedhis mo tio n — just tw o days be f or e the Supre me C ourt ’s landmark decisi on in Atk ins v. V ir g in ia, 5 3 6U .S

. 3 0 4( 2 0 0 2 )

— and requir ed that he filehis petitionw ithin sixtyday s, i.e., less th an two months after Atk ins wa s de cid ed andwit houtthe benef it of addit ional d isc overy. 6 W I E N E R , C i r c ui t Judge, c onc urr i ng: I c onc ur i n t he m aj or i t y o pi ni on, as I bel i eve t hat i t i s a c or r ec t i nt er pre t at i on of 28 U
. S

. C

. § 225 5( h ) , bu t I w ri t e separatel y t o em ph asi ze t h e absu rdi t y of its K a fk a e s q u e re s u lt: B e c a u s e W e b s t e r s e e k s to d e m o n s tr a te o n ly th a t h e is
c o n s tit u tio n a lly in e lig ib le fo r th e d e a th p e n a lty — a n d n o t t h a t h e is fa c tu a lly i nno c e nt o f

t he c r i m e — w e m us t s anc t i o n hi s e xe c ut i o n. If t h e evi den ce t h at W ebsteratt em pts t o i n t rodu ce here w ere ever p r e s e n te d to a ju d g e o r ju r y fo r c o n s id e r a tio n o n th e m e r its , it is v i r tu a lly gu aran t eed that he w ou l d be f ou n d to be m en t al l y ret arded
. I n 1 993 — m ore t h an a year bef

ore hi s i n di ct m en t f

or the of fen se of con vi ct i on — W ebsterapp l i ed f or Soci al Secu ri t y ben ef i t s. To d et erm i n e hi s el i gi bi l i t y f or t h ose benefi t s, t h ree 1
se par at e g ove r nm ent physi c i ans per f or m ed m edi c aland ps yc hol ogi c alex am i nat i o ns o n hi m . No t a b l y , a l lt hr e e p hy s i c i a ns i nd e p e nd e nt l y c o nc l ud e d t hat W ebs t eri s m ent al l y r et ar ded. Fi r st , D r . R i t t el m eye r di agnos ed W ebste r as suf fer i ng f r om “[ m ] ent alr et ar dat i on. ” Th en, D r . Spel l m an des c r i bed W ebs t eras “a sl ow fel l ow w h o did n ot k n ow m u ch a n d d i d n ot k n o w h o w to com m u n i ca te
w e l l
. ” Exp l ai ni ng t hathe ha d f o und no e vi de nc e o f

e xa gg e r at i o n o r m al i nge r i ng du ri n g h i s exam i n ati on , D r. S p e ll m an concl u ded t h at W ebster ’ s I Q w as 69 or l ow er a n d tha t his si gn i fi ca n t cogn i ti ve dif fi cu l tie s w ere attri b u tab l e n ot to
m en tal i l l n ess bu t t o “m en tal retard a ti on . ” F i n a l l y, D r. H a ck ett pe rform ed an IQ t es t and c onc l uded t hat W ebs t er ’ s I Q w as 59. D r . H ac ket t des c r i bed W ebs t eras “m ild ly re ta r d e d ,” “a n tis o c ia l,” a n d u n a b le t o “ fu n c tio n w e ll in t h e w o r k p la c e .” Thes e report s , t he m e r i t s o f w hi c h ha ve ne ve r b e e n c o ns i de r e d b y any Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

Of course, this i s all in addition to the alre adysub stanti al evidenc e of mental 2 re tard a ti onth at Web st eri ntr odu ce d b ef or e th e trial co u rt , inclu di n g , in t er a li a , testi mony from Docto r Finnth at Web ster’s IQ was 59; testimony from Dr. Keyes th at Web ster h ad an IQ of 51 with the adaptivefunctio nin g of a seven -ye ar-ol d; testimonyfrom Dr. Cu nningth at Web ster suffered from mil d mental retardati on; and testimony f ro ms eve r alwit n esses fa miliar with Web ster’s adaptiv e deficits incommu nic atio n, c once ptual skills, h ome living , function al aca demics, and day -to-daylife. 7 j udg e o r j ur y, r e f

ut e m uc h o f

t he ev i de nc e i nt r o duc e d by t he go ve r nm e nt at t he pen al t y ph ase of W ebster ’ s t ri al
. F or exam pl e, t h e govern m en t ’ s ph ysi ci an s — al lof w h om exam i n ed W ebsterw h i l e h e w as i n carcer ated f or t h e of

fen se of convic t i o n — s ugg e s t e d that he w as m al i n geri n g an d exa ggerati n g h i s s ym ptom s i n the h opes of

b ei n g f ou n d i n el i gi bl e forthe dea t h p en al t y. In contrast , n on e of t h e Soci al Secu ri t y ph ysi ci an s w h o d i agn osed W ebster ’ s m en t al ret arda t i on m anyy e ar s e ar l i e r no t e d any s uc h e vi de nc e . M o r e o ve r , at t r i al , t he g o ve r nm e nt i n t rodu ced t est i m on y t h at W ebsterha d n ever b een p l aced i n sp eci al edu cat i on c l as s e s , w hi c h wei ghe d f u rt he r s t i l la ga i ns t a f i ndi ng o f

m e nt alr e t ar da t i o n. A g a in , th o u g h , th e S o c ia l S e c u r ity r e c o r d s t e ll a d iffe r e n t s to r y . S p e c ific a lly , a l et t er to the Soc i alSec uri t y Ad m i ni st r at i on f r om Lou Jac kso n, t he Spec i al E du cat i on Su pervi sor f or t h e W atson C h ap elSch ool s, in di cat es t h at W ebster
w a s i n d e e d e n r o lle d in s p e c ia l e d u c a tio n cla s s e s b u t t h a t t h e re c o r d s o f h is
en rol l m en t t h ere w ere dest royed i n 198 8 aft er hi s fam i l y di d n ot resp on d to a l et t er “ t el l i n g t h em t h ey coul d h ave the recor ds i f t h ey w a n te d th e m . ” U n der 2 § 2 2 5 5 (h), h ow ev e r , w e m u s t tu rn a b l i n d ey e to th i s ev i d en ce, a s i t spe a k s to W e b s te r ’ s co n s tit u tio n a l e lig ib ility fo r t h e d e a th p e n a lty a n d n o t h is fa c tu a l g u ilt or i n n ocence of

t h e cr i m e. The Supr e m e Cour t e xp l ai ne d i n A tk in s v . V irg in ia t h a t b e c a u s e m e n ta lly
r e t ar de d p e r s o ns s uf fe r f r o m “ di s ab i l i t i e s i n ar e as o f r e as o ni ng, j udg m e nt , a nd
co n tro l of th e ir im p u lse s, th e y d o n o t a ct w ith th e lev e l of m oralcul pa bi l i ty t hat Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/28/2010N o. 09- 11039

5 3 6U .S

. at 3 2 0(em ph a si s a dd ed). 3 Id
. 4 8 cha ract eri zes t h e m ost ser i ou s adu l t cr i m i n al c on du ct
. ” Th u s, “ i n t h e l i gh t of 3
o ur e vo l vi ng s t and ar ds o f de c e nc y, ” t he Cour t he l d t hatt he Ei ght h Am e ndm e nt pro hi bi t s as ex c es si ve t he exe c ut i on of m ent al l y r et ar ded de fendant s. Al t hough 4 I c o nc ur i n t he m aj o r i t y’ s o pi ni o n as a c o r r e c t s t at e m e nt o f t he l aw , I conti nue t o h a r b o r a d e e p a n d u n s e t t li n g c o n v ic t io n th a t , a lb e it u n d e r C o n g r e s s ’s i n st ructi on w h i ch t i es ou r j u di ci al h an ds so i l l ogi cal l y, w e t oda y h ave n o choi ce b u t t o con d on e j u st su ch an u n con sti tu ti on a lpu n i sh m en t. Case: 09-11039 Document: 00511093965 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/28/2010