Opinion ID: 4546604
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rehaif Claim

Text: Price’s second claim stems from Rehaif, 139 S. Ct.2191. In that case the Supreme Court held that in prosecutions under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), the government must prove the defendant knew both that he possessed a firearm and that he belonged to a class of persons prohibited from possessing a firearm. Rehaif, 139 S. Ct. at 2200. We later denied a petitioner’s second or successive application challenging his § 922(g) conviction under Rehaif. In doing so, we explained that his claim failed to meet the statutory criteria in § 2244(b)(C)(3) because Rehaif did not announce a new rule of constitutional law and, even if it did, it has not been made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court. In re Palacios, 931 Case: 20-12133 Date Filed: 07/07/2020 Page: 8 of 8 F.3d 1314, 1315 (11th Cir. 2019). For those same reasons, Price’s Rehaif claim fails to meet the statutory criteria for a second or successive application.