Ct. of Appeals denied defendant’s third application for permission to file successive motion under 28 USC section 2255 to vacate his 20-year sentence on RICO charge. While defendant argued that vacatur of sentence was warranted under Hurst, 136 S.Ct. 616, defendant was not entitled to file successive habeas petition, where: (1) holding in Hurst, which concerned appropriate procedure for sentencing in capital murder case, did not apply to instant case; and (2) decision in Hurst was published months before defendant had filed his prior applications to file successive habeas petition. Defendant also could not prevail under 28 USC section 2255(h)(1) by basing instant motion on newly discovered evidence, since defendant was not contesting validity of his conviction.
Federal 7th Circuit Court
Criminal Court
Habeas Corpus