Court Opinion

ID: 9415316
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 18:45:07.701588+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:10.563816
License: Public Domain

EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I concur in the per curiam opinion in its entirety, since our circuit authority, based on United States v. Orozco-Ramirez, 211 F.3d 862 (5th Cir.2000), requires us to find Garza’s second § 2255 petition to be an unauthorized successive motion.
However, the better view is expressed by the majority of circuits: a § 2255 petition is not considered to be successive if a prior § 2255 petition requests only to reinstate the petitioner’s right to appeal and does not attack the judgment on the merits. See, e.g., Johnson v. United States, 362 F.3d 636, 638 (9th Cir.2004); In re Olabode, 325 F.3d 166, 172-73 (3d Cir.2003); Vasquez v. Parrott, 318 F.3d 387, 392 n. 1 (2d Cir.2003); McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 1332 (11th Cir.2002); In re Goddard, 170 F.3d 435, 438 (4th Cir.1999); Shepeck v. United States, 150 F.3d 800, 800-01 (7th Cir.1998); United States v. Scott, 124 F.3d 1328, 1330 (10th Cir.1997).
Accordingly, I would encourage the en banc court to reconsider this issue and align our precedent with that of our sister circuits.