Opinion ID: 2751490
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: second and successive appeal

Text: After the district court granted a certificate of appealability, Mr. Harris filed a “Motion for Order Authorizing District Court to Consider a Successive Motion for Relief Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.” We took the motion under advisement. A federal prisoner cannot bring more than one § 2255 challenge unless a second or successive one is based on (1) “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense”; or (2) “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). In his motion, Mr. Harris first emphasizes the determination at the evidentiary hearing that he was not arrested on July 9, 1989. For the reasons presented above, Mr. Harris does not meet either criterion for a second or successive § 2255 motion on this ground. Mr. Harris neither presents newly discovered evidence nor identifies new constitutional law that was previously unavailable. The evidentiary hearing determined Mr. Harris was merely stopped and not arrested, but a reasonable factfinder could still find Mr. Harris guilty based on the sworn testimony of two officers who saw him engaged in what they identified as a drug transaction. Second, Mr. Harris notes the officers testified for the first time at the evidentiary hearing that they called in a warrant check on all the individuals they stopped on July 9, 1989, but proceeded to let the individuals leave when there were no outstanding warrants. -8- Mr. Harris offers newly discovered evidence from the Tulsa Police Department indicating he had six warrants for his arrest when he was apprehended by police on July 10, 1989. Mr. Harris argues the outstanding warrants, viewed in light of the new testimony, suggest he was not among the individuals at the scene. We may authorize a second or successive § 2255 motion upon a showing that “the factual predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence,” and that “the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in the light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” Bey v. United States, 399 F.3d 1266, 1268 n.1 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)). Mr. Harris’s claim fails at both steps of the inquiry. The exercise of due diligence could have timely identified the relevant police practices and written records at the time of Mr. Harris’s trial. Furthermore, the new information about the warrants does not establish that no reasonable factfinder could have found Mr. Harris guilty. The officers testified at trial that they saw Mr. Harris dealing drugs and subsequently stopped him along with others at the scene. Although the officers’ recollections over two decades later may raise questions about the processes followed in the stop, or even whether Mr. Harris was among those eventually stopped, it does not contradict the officers’ sworn testimony at trial that they saw Mr. Harris dealing drugs on July 9, 1989. In light of the evidence presented at trial, it is unlikely that the defense’s presentation of the outstanding warrants would have led to Mr. Harris’s acquittal or that no reasonable factfinder would -9- have found him guilty. We therefore deny Mr. Harris’s motion to bring a second or successive § 2255 motion before the district court.