Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 40591 Su m m ar y C al endar

UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. LUI S AL EJANDRO GARZ A, D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he Sout her n D i st r i c tof Texas U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V
- 496 B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Lui s Al ej and r o G ar z a, fe de r alpr i so ne r#9 24 34 - 07 9, c o nvi c t e d o f f o ur c ount s of

vi ol at i ng fede r aldr ug l aw s, w a s sen t enc ed t o f ourc onc urr ent324- m o nt h t e r m s o f i m pr i s o nm e nt . H e f i l e d a 28 U . S. C. § 2 25 5 m o t i o n, r e que s t i ng per m i ss i on t o f

i l e a n out - of

- t i m e a ppealan d bas ed o n cl ai m ed i nef fec t ive assi st an ce of

co u n self

or fai l i n g t o prosecute an app eal . Th e di st ri ctcourt gr ant e d rel i e f, a nd o urc o ur ts ubs e que nt l y af f i r m e d t he c o nvi c t i o ns a nd

United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rc h 22, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 09-40591 Document: 00511058605 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. 09- 40591

2 s e n te n c e s . Un i t ed Stat es v. G arza , 2 7 5 F . A p p ’ x3 7 7 (5 th C ir .), cer t . den i ed , 129 S . C t. 4 2 3 (2 0 0 8 ). G a r z afile da s e c o n d§ 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , c h a lle n g in gc la im e de r r o r s d u r in gh is t r i al . Th e di st r i c tc our tdi sm i ss ed t he m ot i on f orl ac k of

j uri sdi c t i on, c onc l udi ng: t h e m ot i on w as success ive; an d, G arza h ad fai l ed to obtai n au t h ori zati on f rom ou r c ou rtt o f

i l e it . In the l i gh tof

a circui tspl i ton the qu est i on , t h e di st ri ctcourt gr ant ed G ar za a c er t i f i c at e o f appeal abi l ity for w h et hera s ubse quent§ 2255 m ot i on i s barred as a succes sive m ot i on un der § 2255 (h ) w h e n i trai ses i ssues t hatc o ul d ha ve b e e n r ai s e d i n t he i ni t i al§ 2 25 5 m o t i o n. R evi ew of

a di st r i c tc our t ’ s di sm i ss alof a § 2255 m ot i on as an u n au t h ori zed successive m ot i on i s de no vo . S ee Un i t ed S t at e sv . O ro zco- R am i rez , 211 F . 3d862 , 86 5 (5 th C i r. 200 0) . G arza’ s c on t en t i on t h at th e di st ri ctcourt er r ed i n d i sm i ss i ng hi s se c ond § 2255 m ot i on as an unauthor i ze d s ucc es sive m o t i on is for e c l o s e d b y o urde c i s i o n i n O rozc o- R am i rez . Se ei d. at869- 71. B ecau se G arza’ s c l ai m s r egard i n g h i s t ri alw ere av ai l able t o h i m w h en he f i l ed h is in itia l § 2 2 5 5 m o tio n , th e ya r e s u c c e s s iv e . Se ei d. Hi s r e l i a n c e o n Un i t ed S ta tes v. W

est , 2 4 0 F .3 d4 5 6 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ), is m is p la c e d : W estc l a r i f

i e dt he p r o c e d u r e to b e fo llo w e db yad is tr ic t c o u r t in g r a n tin ga n o u t-o f-t im e a p p e a l, i d. at4 58 - 59 ; i tdi d n otaddres s w het hera subs equent§ 2255 m ot i on i s suc c es sive w ith in th e m e a n in go f 2 8 U .S .C § 2 2 4 4 . AF F I RMED. Case: 09-40591 Document: 00511058605 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/22/2010N o. [ C ase N u m ber]

3 E M I LIO M . G A R ZA , C i r c ui tJudge, s pec i al l y c onc urr i ng: I c o n c u rin th e p e rcu r ia m o p in io n in its e n tir e ty , sin c e o u rcir c u it aut ho r i t y, b as e d o n Uni t e d St at e s v . O r o z c o - R am i rez , 2 1 1 F . 3d 862 ( 5th C i r. 200 0) , requ i res u s t o f i n d G arza’ s s econd § 2255 petit i on t o be an un au t h ori zed s u c c e s s iv e m o tio n . H ow eve r , t he be t t ervi ew i s expr es se d by t he m aj or i t y o f c i r c ui t s: a § 2255 p e tit io n is n o t c o n s id e r e dt o b e s u c c e s s iv e if a p r io r§ 2 2 5 5 p e tit io n re q u e s ts o n ly t o rei n st ate t h e petit i on er’ s r i gh tt o app ealan d does n otatt ack the j u dg m en ton th e m e r its . See, e . g. , J oh n son v. Un i t ed S t ate s ; 3 6 2 F .3d 6 3 6 , 6 3 8 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 4 ); I n reO lab o de , 3 2 5 F .3 d1 6 6 , 1 7 2

– 7 3 (3 dC ir . 2 0 0 3 ); V a sq u ezv. Pa rr o tt , 318 F. 3d 3 8 7 , 3 9 2 n .1 (2 dC ir . 2 0 0 3 ); McIver v. Un i t ed S t ate s , 30 7 F . 3 d13 2 7 , 13 3 2 ( 1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ); I

n reG od d ard , 1 7 0 F .3 d4 3 5 , 4 3 8 (4 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ); S h epeck v. Un i t ed S t ate s ; 1 5 0 F .3 d8 0 0 , 8 0 0

– 0 1 (7 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); Un itedS ta tes v . S co tt , 124 F. 3d 1 3 2 8 , 1 3 3 0 (10 th C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). Acc o r di ngly, I w o ul d e nc o ur ag e t he e n b anc c o ur tt o r e c o ns i de rt hi s i s s ue an d ali gn our preceden tw i t h t h at of our si st er c i rcui t s. Case: 09-40591 Document: 00511058605 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/22/2010