11th Circuit holds that Carpenter claims are not cognizable on successive petitions for 2255 relief.

In this case, the Defendant attempted to bring a second or successive motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his federal sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

In denying the request, the Court started its analysis by noting that authorization may be granted only if the Court certifies that the second or successive motion contains a claim involving:

(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 factfmder 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, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

The Defendant’s argument to get through htis hurdle was that, based on Carpenter v. United States and Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473, 189 L. Ed. 2d 430 (2014), any information the government obtained from his cellphone during its investigation of his criminal activities was gathered in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights because the government failed to obtain a warrant to access his cellphone records.

In response, the 11th Circuit stated that the Supreme Court did not state explicitly that either case was retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review.

The case is In re Baker, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 893, 11th Cir. (January 9, 2019). Decided

Related Posts
  • Fighting Google Keyword Warrants Read More
  • Three new cases coming up that will affect Carpenter litigation, all in Massachusetts. Read More
  • Middle District of Tennessee holds Iphones in plain view can be seized during a lawful arrest or encounter. Read More