FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 9, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

In re:

BILLY HILL,

Movant.

No. 10-3032

(D.C. No. 5:07-CV-03084-SAC)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, TYMKOVICH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.

Billy Hill, a Kansas state prisoner proceeding pro se, moves for

authorization to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition under

28 U.S.C. § 2254. We deny authorization. 

In 2000, Mr. Hill pleaded nolo contendere to first-degree murder,

conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, criminal possession of a firearm, and

six drug-related charges. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole

eligibility for twenty-five years. He did not appeal. 

In 2007, Mr. Hill filed in federal district court a § 2254 habeas petition,

asserting that his speedy-trial rights had been violated and that there was an

insufficient factual basis to support his nolo contendere plea. The court dismissed

the petition as time-barred. Mr. Hill did not appeal. 

Appellate Case: 10-3032 Document: 01018363789 Date Filed: 02/09/2010 Page: 1 
-2-

He filed another § 2254 habeas petition in January 2010. The federal

district court dismissed that petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was second

and successive and Mr. Hill had not obtained our authorization to file it. 

Additionally, the court declined to transfer the action to us because the prior

petition had been dismissed as time-barred. 

Two weeks after the district court’s dismissal, Mr. Hill filed the pending

motion for authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. He

seeks authorization to assert two claims: (1) his counsel was ineffective due to a

conflict of interest, thereby resulting in the prosecutor coercing him into entering

a plea that was not made knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently and resulting in

his not insisting on a trial; and (2) his plea of nolo contendere was a complete

miscarriage of justice as he is innocent. 

To obtain our authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition,

Mr. Hill must show either (1) a new, previously unavailable,

retroactively-applicable rule of constitutional law; or (2) previously

undiscoverable facts, which when viewed in light of all of the evidence, show that

but for the alleged constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found

him guilty. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2). Mr. Hill concedes that his claims are not

based on a new rule of law. He contends that his claims are based on newly

discovered evidence obtained from the transcripts of his daughter’s grand jury

proceedings. 

Appellate Case: 10-3032 Document: 01018363789 Date Filed: 02/09/2010 Page: 2 
-3-

Mr. Hill does not provide us with any specific details or evidence to

support his ineffective-assistance and innocence assertions. He therefore has not

satisfied his burden of setting forth new facts showing by clear and convincing

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. See id.

§ 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). 

Accordingly, we DENY Mr. Hill’s motion for authorization. This denial of

authorization is not appealable and “shall not be the subject of a petition for

rehearing or for a writ of certiorari.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E).

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-3032 Document: 01018363789 Date Filed: 02/09/2010 Page: 3