Legal Opinion
In Re: Antrone Davis
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided July 21, 2016No. 16-13779-J; 16-14615-JPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER:
Antrone Davis has filed two pro se application for permission to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion based on Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015). Because Davis already filed one § 2255 motion, his new motion must be “certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain ... a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). “The court of appeals may authorize the filing of a second or successive…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Taylor v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Benton v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Keith Lamont Jordan v. Secretary, DOCCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2007
- In re MossCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2013
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- In re ChanceCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2016
- United States v. Michael St. HubertCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2019
- Ziglar v. United StatesDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama · 2016
- United States v. BeckhamDistrict Court, E.D. Washington · 2016
- Curtis Solomon v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2020
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.