Bowe v. United States · ¶70

In particular, §2255(h)(1) permits a second or successive §2255 motion if the petitioner identifies “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense.” Section 2244(b)(2)(B) also concerns claims based on new facts, but it is more limited than §2255’s in two ways. First, it confines the new-facts exception to scenarios in which the new facts “could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence.” §2244(b)(2)(B)(i). Second, it requires that the movant show “by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable fact- finder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” §2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.