Bowe v. United States · ¶90
This reading of § 2244(b)(3)(E) finds support in Castro. That case, like this one, came to us in a distinct posture. Castro, a federal prisoner, fled a motion in the District Court to vacate his sentence under § 2255. See 540 U. S., at 378. Because Castro did not understand his motion to be second or successive, he did not first seek authorization from a three-judge panel in the Court of Appeals. See id., at 378– 379; see also 28 U. S. C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (“Before a second or successive application . . . is fled in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application”). Taking a different view than Castro, the District Court “dismissed the motion for failure to comply with” the statutory restrictions on second or successive claims. 540 U. S., at 379. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.