Court Opinion

ID: 9905591
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-29 20:00:46.903549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:45.828960
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        NOV 29 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ABU KHALID ABDUL-LATIF, AKA                     No. 23-71
Joseph Anthony Davis,
                                                D.C. No.
             Petitioner,                        2:11-cr-00228-JLR

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Respondent.

                 Application to File Second or Successive Petition
                                Under 28 U.S.C. §

                    Argued and Submitted November 15, 2023
                              Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and BENNETT, District
Judge.**

      In December 2012, Applicant Abu Khalid Abdul-Latif pled guilty to

conspiracy to murder officers and employees of the United States and conspiracy

to use weapons of mass destruction. His conviction stems from his involvement in

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The Honorable Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District
Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.
a June 2011 plot to attack a military building in Seattle—a plot which involved

Abdul-Latif, his codefendant Walli Mujahidh, and Abdul-Latif’s friend Robert

Childs, who, unbeknownst to Abdul-Latif and his codefendant, was working as a

government informant during the course of the conspiracy. Abdul-Latif seeks to

file a successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, based on a declaration from

Childs that Abdul-Latif says is newly discovered evidence (1) showing that his

guilty plea was made unknowingly and (2) supporting his entrapment defense.

      Abdul-Latif does not contend that any claim in his proposed successive

§ 2255 motion is based on a new rule of constitutional law, thus this Court may

authorize his successive § 2255 motion only if it makes a prima facie showing that

it relies on “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3).

      1. Even if Childs’s new statements would help Abdul-Latif prove that he

pled guilty without knowledge of all relevant facts, this “newly discovered

evidence” does not demonstrate that he was factually innocent of his underlying

convictions. See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 623 (1998) (explaining

that “‘actual innocence’ means factual innocence, not mere legal insufficiency”).

Even if Childs’s new statements would support Abdul-Latif’s entrapment defense,

                                          2
the new evidence, alone, is not capable of proving entrapment by clear and

convincing evidence. Contrary to Abdul-Latif’s contentions, Childs’s opinion that

Abdul-Latif lacked the predisposition to commit the crime is insufficient, when

viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, to make a prima facie showing that

Abdul-Latif could establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable

factfinder would have found Abdul-Latif guilty of the offense, particularly in light

of the extensive evidence of predisposition. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1). Assuming

arguendo that a defense of entrapment could, if adequately proven, establish a

showing of actual innocence, Childs’s declaration does not support such a

contention. As such, Abdul-Latif cannot satisfy the criteria of 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255(h)(1).

      Because Abdul-Latif fails to satisfy § 2255(h)(1)’s actual innocence

requirement, we deny his application to file a second or successive petition. 28

U.S.C. § 2255(h); Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465, 477 (2023) (“In § 2255(h),

Congress enumerated two—and only two—conditions in which a second or

successive § 2255 motion may proceed.”).

      No further filings will be entertained in this case.

      APPLICATION DENIED.

                                          3