Bowe v. United States
607 U. S. 13 (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: preliminary print (page proof)
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 Jus tice 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 frearm 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 defnitional clauses…
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. 22–36. (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 ›