Bowe v. United States · ¶72

In particular, § 2255(h)(1) permits a second or successive § 2255 motion if the petitioner identifes “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 factfnder 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 confnes 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 factfnder would have found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense.” § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).

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