Source: http://ks.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170728_0001007.DKS.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 02:37:09+00:00

Document:
On September 12, 2005, Petitioner pled guilty to one count of obstructing interstate commerce by robbery. The Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) applied a five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) for brandishing a firearm; and a two-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1 for being on escape status when the offense was committed. Petitioner's total offense level was 32, with a criminal history category of VI, with a resulting Guidelines range of 151-188 months. On February 13, 2006, this Court sentenced Petitioner to 188 months' imprisonment to be served consecutively to any sentence received in a separate Mississippi state court proceeding.
Petitioner's first motion for § 2255 relief was based on ineffective assistance of counsel.This Court denied his request for relief. Petitioner did not file a direct appeal. Petitioner filed the instant motion to vacate his sentence under § 2255, citing the recent Supreme Court decision in Mathis v. United States. Petitioner did not seek nor obtain authorization from the Tenth Circuit prior to filing his motion.
The phrase “if it is in the interest of justice” has been interpreted to grant the district court the discretion in making the decision whether to transfer an action or, instead, to dismiss the action. Factors considered in deciding whether a transfer is in the interest of justice include whether the claims would have been time-barred if filed anew in the proper forum, whether the claims alleged are likely to have merit, and whether the claims were filed in good faith or if, on the other hand, it was clear at the time of filing that the court lacked the requisite jurisdiction.A prisoner who wishes to file a successive § 2255 motion has the burden of showing that he satisfies one of two conditions: either (1) the existence of newly discovered evidence; or (2) the existence of a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.
Petitioner claims that he is entitled to relief given the existence of a new rule of constitutional law in Mathis v. United States, where the Supreme Court explained that before imposing the five-year enhancement under the Armed Career Criminals Act (“ACCA”), a sentencing court must determine whether a defendant's prior convictions qualify as one of the enumerated “violent felonies.” To make this determination, courts apply the “categorical approach, ” looking at the “generic versions” and “not to all variants of the [enumerated] offenses.” However, the Tenth Circuit has determined that the rule announced in Mathis is not new and does not apply retroactively. Because Mathis is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review, and did not announce a new rule of law, Petitioner cannot rely on it in a successive § 2255 motion filed more than ten years after the judgment in his criminal case became final. Petitioner's motion is untimely.
Accordingly, Petitioner's motion does not meet the requirements for second or successive § 2255 motions, and the Court dismisses the motion for lack of jurisdiction rather than transferring to the Tenth Circuit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that Petitioner's § 2255 motion (Doc. 45) is hereby DISMISSED as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.

References: § 2
 § 4
 § 2255
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 v. 
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255
 § 2255