Bowe v. United States · ¶120

Neither holding makes sense unless subparagraph (E) applies to federal prisoners pursuing second or successive collateral attacks. Why take the trouble to show this federal prisoner wasn't pursuing a second or successive attack subject to subparagraph (E)—and why bother rejecting the government's lopsided argument about how subparagraph (E) works—if subparagraph (E) has no bearing whatsoever on federal prisoners in the first place? While Castro may not have announced a “holding” that subparagraph (E) applies to federal prisoners pursuing second or successive collateral attacks, ante, at 26, n. 3, all of its work was surely grounded on that premise.

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.