Bowe v. United States · ¶78

For one, it is not clear why searching through case files to see if the litigant has raised a claim before is any easier than determining whether the litigant has identified new evidence or a new rule of constitutional law that is retroactive. As the parties explain, it seems just as likely that the panel's obligation to assess only whether a filing has made a prima facie showing that it satisfes § 2255(h)'s content requirements, and not to undertake a more searching inquiry on the merits, is what facilitates the 30-day deadline. See Reply Brief for Petitioner 9–10; Reply Brief for United States 9; see also Tyler v. Cain, 533 U. S. 656, 664, 661, n. 3 (2001). Amicus certainly provides no evidence to suggest that her hypothesis is the more plausible one.Regardless, amicus's “speculation as to Congress' intent” in enacting the old-claim bar and 30-day deadline “cannot replace the actual…

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