Case Name: John F. FRIEDLANDER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-15
Citations: 542 F. App'x 576
Docket Number: No. 13-70918
Parties: John F. FRIEDLANDER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 576–577

Head Matter:
John F. FRIEDLANDER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent.
No. 13-70918.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 8, 2013.
Filed Oct. 15, 2013.
Matthew Campbell, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDWA-Federal Public Defender’s Office (Eastern WA & ID), Spokane, WA, John F. Friedlander, pro se, for Petitioner.
Timothy John Ohms, Assistant U.S. USSP-Office of the U.S. Attorney, SPOKANE, WA, for Respondent.
Before: TASHIMA, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously finds this motion suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).

Opinion:
ORDER
John Friedlander was charged as an adult in federal district court for a murder committed when he was sixteen. On January 20, 1988, he pleaded guilty to Second Degree Murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a), and Assault with Intent to Commit Murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a). He was sentenced to life in prison for the murder charge, and a concurrent term of twenty years for the assault charge. In 1992, the district court denied his first pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Friedlander has now filed an application for leave to file a second or successive motion under § 2255. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
We may authorize the filing of a second or successive motion under § 2255 if, among other things, the application makes a prima facie showing that the motion would "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; 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(0). Friedlander contends that his sentence is contrary to Miller v. Alabama, — U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455, 183 L.Ed.2d 407 (2012), which held that a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole for a juvenile homicide offender violates the Eighth Amendment. We need not decide whether Miller announced a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law because, even if it did, Friedlander's application would fail.
Miller is inapplicable because Friedlan-der was not sentenced to life without parole. Friedlander admits that he "has seen the parole board approximately 8 time[s] . and [has] a forth coming [sic] hearing in February of 2014."
The application to file a second or successive motion under § 2255 is DENIED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.