Court Opinion

ID: 804804
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-07-20 15:29:47+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:50.777798
License: Public Domain

Case: 11-14812    Date Filed: 07/19/2012       Page: 1 of 2

                                                                [DO NOT PUBLISH]

              IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                      FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                       ________________________

                              No. 11-14812
                          Non-Argument Calendar
                        ________________________

         D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cv-21899-ASG ; 1:07cr-20224-ASG-1

MIGUEL BEATO,

                               llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant,

                                    versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                              llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent-Appellee.

                        ________________________

                 Appeal from the United States District Court
                     for the Southern District of Florida
                       ________________________

                               (July 19, 2012)

Before MARCUS, MARTIN and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

     Miguel Beato appeals the denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.
                  Case: 11-14812   Date Filed: 07/19/2012   Page: 2 of 2

§ 2255. The sole question before us is whether, under the principles of Teague v.

Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989), the Supreme Court’s decision in

Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is retroactively

applicable on collateral review, such that Beato’s motion to vacate is timely under

28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). According to Beato, the Supreme Court in Padilla

established a new and “watershed” rule of criminal procedure. Teague, 489 U.S.

at 311, 109 S. Ct. at 1076. Our recent decision in Figuereo-Sanchez v. United

States, No. 10-14235, ___ F.3d ___, 2012 WL 1499871 (11th Cir. May 1, 2012),

forecloses this argument. See id. at *3–6. We therefore affirm the judgment of the

district court.

       AFFIRMED.

                                           2