May 6, 2026, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • United States of America v. Robbie Newby, 25-40621, appeal from E.D. Tex.
    • Oldham, J. (single judge) (no oral argument), habeas corpus
    • Denying motion for certificate of appealability from district court’s denial of Rule 60(b) motion construed as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion.
    • At issue was (1) whether the court could issue a COA when the applicant’s claims do not implicate the denial of a constitutional right; and (2) whether a Rule 60(b) motion that effectively attacks the merits of a prior habeas ruling qualifies as a second-or-successive habeas petition requiring prior appellate authorization.
    • The court held that a COA may issue “only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right” under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). Newby sought a COA only on whether his Rule 60(b)(6) motion was a second-or-successive petition and whether his Rule 59(e) motion was timely—neither of which implicates a constitutional right.
      • Even assuming the claims did involve a constitutional right, the court explained that under Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005), a Rule 60(b) motion that “seeks to add a new ground for relief” or “attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits” is really a second-or-successive habeas petition. Congress requires applicants to first obtain permission from the court of appeals under a “nearly insurmountable” standard—a prima facie showing that the claim relies on a new retroactive rule of constitutional law or new evidence of innocence—which is “far higher than the ‘substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right’ required to obtain a COA.”
      • The court noted that “applicants who seek to challenge the merits of their conviction cannot use Rule 60(b) plus a COA to circumvent Congress’s restrictions on second-or-successive petitions.” The proper path, if one exists, is for the district court to transfer the unauthorized petition to the court of appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 so it can be considered under the correct second-or-successive standard.

Unpublished decisions

  • United States v. Suzuki, 25-60637, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (Smith, Higginson, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming 24-month above-guidelines sentence imposed after a second revocation of supervised release—following an underlying conviction for transmitting threatening communications in interstate commerce.
    • The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion. Nothing in the record showed the district court failed to account for a significant factor, gave weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or committed a clear error of judgment in balancing the sentencing factors.
  • United States v. Ayala-Malagon, 25-50623, c/w U.S. v. Malagon-Ayala, 25-50636, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming sentence on conviction of illegal reentry.
    • At issue was whether the statutory sentencing enhancement in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional; consolidated appeal also involved revocation of supervised release. The court found Ayala-Malagon’s constitutional challenge to § 1326(b) foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), as the defendant himself conceded; the argument was preserved only for potential Supreme Court review.
  • United States v. Rodriguez-Rascon, 25-11156, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Wiener, Willett, Wilson) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.
  • United States v. Chavez-Arzu, 25-30441, appeal from W.D. La.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal, sentencing
    • Affirming above-guidelines 36-month sentence for illegal reentry and supervised-release condition suspending supervision upon deportation.
    • The court found the district court’s reference to pending charges did not “loom large” over the sentencing relative to other factors, so Chavez-Arzu failed to show his substantial rights were affected. The court’s explanation of its sentence was sufficient to show a reasoned basis for the decision, and Chavez-Arzu did not demonstrate that a more detailed explanation would have yielded a lesser sentence. The challenge to the supervised-release condition also failed because no circuit precedent established that the condition exceeded statutory authority, meaning there was no clear or obvious error.
  • United States v. Gonzales, 25-10520, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Higginbotham, Engelhardt, Ramirez) (no oral argument), criminal
    • Granting Anders motion to withdraw, and dismissing appeal.