Court Opinion

ID: 9814532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 23:55:07.709624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:41:41.328976
License: Public Domain

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
Although I must agree with the majority that West’s efforts constitute a second or successive habeas application subject to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)’s gatekeeping requirements under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005), I continue to adhere to my conclusion that West received ineffective assistance of counsel at the penalty phase. West v. Bell, 550 F.3d 542, 567-70 (6th Cir.2008) (Moore, J., dissenting in part).