Source: http://pa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180328_0000455.WPA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 04:36:15+00:00

Document:
FPC McKEAN WARDEN, et al., Respondents.
SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by federal prisoner Algernon Toole pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is dismissed for lack of jurisidiction.
Toole was convicted in 2010 in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York of Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count One), and Conspiracy to Possess with Intent to Distribute and to Distribute five (5) kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (Count Two). On September 21, 2010, that court sentence him to 240 months of imprisonment on each count, to run concurrent. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed his judgment, Toole filed in the District Court for the Western District of New York a motion to vacate his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which that court denied. It also denied him a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).
Petitioner moves for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is DENIED because Petitioner has not made a prima facie showing that the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) are satisfied.
Petitioner does not make a showing that his claims are based on newly discovered evidence within the meaning of § 2255(h)(1), or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court within the meaning of § 2255(h)(2). Regarding the decisions cited in support of his claims, nearly all predate his first § 2255 motion and several were not decided by the Supreme Court. Although he also cites Alleyne v. United States, 133 S.Ct. 2151 (2013), which was decided after Petitioner filed his first § 2255 motion, that case "did not announce a new rule of law made retroactive on collateral review." United States v. Redd, 735 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 2013).

References: § 2241
 § 846
 § 846
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2244
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v.