Opinion ID: 606249
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Abusive Claims

Text: 13 Claims not found to be successive may nevertheless be an abuse of the writ. Campbell, 982 F.2d at 1324. The government bears the burden of pleading abuse of the writ. It satisfies this burden if, with clarity and particularity, it notes petitioner's prior writ history, identifies the claims that appear for the first time, and alleges that petitioner has abused the writ. McCleskey v. Zant, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1470 (1991). The burden then becomes the petitioner's to show cause for failing to raise the claim previously and prejudice therefrom or, that failure to entertain the claim would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Id. 14 Perroton claims for the first time in his second Section 2255 motion that the sentencing court violated Fed.R.Crim.P. 32 by failing to determine at the sentencing hearing that he had read the PSR and therefore depriving him of his opportunity to correct errors in the PSR. Additionally, Perroton claims for the first time that the district court failed to comply with the provisions of the Victim and Witness Protection Act (18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-64) when it ordered restitution. 15 The government has sufficiently pleaded abuse of the writ by noting Perroton's prior writ history, designating the claims presented in his instant motion, and alleging that Perroton has abused the writ. Thus the burden becomes Perroton's to show cause for failing to raise these issues earlier and prejudice therefrom or, in the absence of cause, a showing that failure to entertain the claims would result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice. Perroton had the opportunity to meet either of these burdens in his reply brief. Perroton has failed to meet either burden. 16 REMANDED for the district court to dismiss the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.