Bowe v. United States
607 U. S. ___ (2026) · 1/09/26
Title 28 U. S. C. §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive §2255 motion for postconviction relief, and §2244(b)(1) does not apply to second or successive motions filed under §2255(h) by federal prisoners challenging their convictions or sentences.
Edition: slip opinion
Voices: Syllabus — prepared by the Reporter of Decisions · Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion of the Court. · Justice Jackson, concurring. · Justice Gorsuch, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Alito join, and with whom Justice Barrett joins as to Part I, dissenting.
Petitioner Michael S. Bowe is serving a 24-year sentence in federal custody after pleading guilty in 2008 to three offenses: (1) conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery; (2) attempted Hobbs Act robbery; and (3) using a firearm in relation to a “crime of violence” as defined in 18 U. S. C. §924(c)(1)(A). Bowe’s §924(c) conviction carried a mandatory 10-year sentence to be served consecutively to his sentence for the robbery offenses. To have been properly convicted under §924(c), at least one of Bowe’s other offenses must qualify as a “crime of violence” under one of two definitional clauses in…
Held: 1. The Court has jurisdiction because §2244(b)(3)(E) does not bar this Court’s review of a federal prisoner’s request to file a second or successive §2255 motion. Pp. 5–19. (a) Section 2244(b)(3)(E) provides that the denial of authorization “to file a second or successive application” shall not be the subject of a certiorari petition. That provision does not apply to federal prisoners. It is housed within §2244, which imposes several strict requirements that apply only to state prisoners. It also speaks only to a “second or successive application,” §2244(b)(3)(E), but unlike state…Read it in the reading room ›