Opinion
19-2936
04-28-2020
Ruben Feliciano, Petitioner, v. United States of America, Respondent.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 28th day of April, two thousand twenty. Present: Dennis Jacobs, Debra Ann Livingston, Joseph F. Bianco, Circuit Judges. Petitioner moves for leave to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, primarily based on Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015), and United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319 (2019). Petitioner argues, inter alia, that his 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) conviction predicated in part on conspiracy to commit murder in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1959(a)(5) is no longer valid after Johnson and Davis. Upon due consideration, it is hereby ORDERED that the stay previously entered by this Court is TERMINATED, Petitioner's motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion is GRANTED, and this proceeding is TRANSFERRED to the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the proposed § 2255 motion satisfies the requirements of § 2255(h). Bell v. United States, 296 F.3d 127, 128 (2d Cir. 2002) (per curiam). For the purposes of this order, we have not examined Petitioner's other arguments or claims. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir. 2003) ("The court of appeals must examine the [successive] application to determine whether it contains any claim that satisfies . . . § 2255[(h)]. If so, the court should authorize the prisoner to file the entire application in the district court, even if some of the claims in the application do not satisfy the applicable standards."). We acknowledge that Petitioner's § 924(c) conviction might still be supported by a valid predicate, even if the other predicate is no longer valid after Johnson and Davis. However, making that determination in the present case would require detailed review of the criminal proceedings and factfinding that the district court is better suited to perform, particularly since portions of the record are not currently available to this Court. More importantly, that type of detailed review and factfinding is generally inappropriate in a gatekeeping proceeding where the Court only needs to determine whether a prima facie showing has been made and the Court is statutorily required to reach a decision quickly (or as quickly as circumstances permit). See In re Cannon, 931 F.3d 1236, 1243 (11th Cir. 2019).
For present purposes, we rely on the pleadings in the present proceeding, and in 2d Cir. 16-2166, for the relevant details of Petitioner's counts of conviction. --------
FOR THE COURT:
Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk of Court
Image materials not available for display.