Case Name: IN RE: Charles CLAYTON, Petitioner
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-07-18
Citations: 829 F.3d 1254
Docket Number: No. 16-14556-J
Parties: IN RE: Charles CLAYTON, Petitioner.
Judges: Before: MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 829
Pages: 1254–1276

Head Matter:
IN RE: Charles CLAYTON, Petitioner.
No. 16-14556-J
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Date Filed: 07/18/2016
Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Elizabeth Rainbow Willard, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Petitioner.
Wifredo A. Ferrer, Emily M. Smachetti, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Successive Habeas Respondent.
Before: MARTIN, ROSENBAUM, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ORDER:
Charles Clayton seeks permission to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Because Mr. Clayton previously filed a § 2255 motion, his new motion must be "certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain . a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). "The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive application only if it determines that the application makes a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the re quirements of this subsection." Id. § 2244(b)(3)(C). Mr. Clayton was sentenced in 2010 using United States Sentencing Guidelines § 4B1.1. This court has held that Johnson does not apply to sentences that were based on USSG § 4B1.1. See United States v. Matchett, 802 F.3d 1185, 1196 (11th Cir. 2015). Mr. Clayton has therefore not made "a prima facie showing" that his motion will meet § 2255(h)'s requirements for second or successive § 2255 motions. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(D).
APPLICATION DENIED.