Opinion ID: 2758175
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: 2006-2011 Motions

Text: In 2006, Bazemore filed a subsequent Rule 60(b) motion, which was denied by the district court. This Court denied Bazemore’s request for a COA and later denied his motion for reconsideration. In January 2007, Bazemore filed another Rule 60(b) motion, challenging his federal sentence based on the vacatur of his two prior state theft convictions. Bazemore argued that he was entitled to relief under § 2255 under the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 544 U.S. 295, 302, 125 S. Ct. 1571, 1577 (2005), which held that the vacatur of a state conviction where the petitioner exhibits due diligence was a new fact that restarted the one-year limitations period under § 2255(f)(4). The district court denied the Rule 60(b) motion. Bazemore did not file a timely appeal, though he did later file a motion to reopen the time to file the appeal. The district court denied that motion, and this court affirmed. 2 Bazemore v. United States, 292 F. App'x 873, 873 (11th Cir. 2008). In 2011, this Court decided Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 865 (11th Cir. 2011), holding that a movant’s numerically second § 2255 motion, which raised a Johnson sentencing claim based on a vacated state predicate conviction, was not “second or successive” within the meaning of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”) because the claim did 2 Bazemore filed further variously captioned motions regarding the same set of claims in the period between 2007 and 2011. None of these motions were successful. 4 Case: 13-14218 Date Filed: 12/08/2014 Page: 5 of 11 not exist before the movant’s initial § 2255 proceedings. Stewart filed his numerically second § 2255 motion approximately one month after his state convictions were vacated. Id. at 858. Stewart thus did not address the issue of timeliness but only the question of successiveness.