Bowe v. United States · ¶91

We ultimately held that § 2244(b)(3)(E) did not bar our review of Castro's petition. In so holding, we emphasized that Castro had not “asked the Court of Appeals to grant, and it nowhere denied, any `authorization . . . to file a second or successive application.' ” Id., at 380 (quoting § 2244(b) (3)(E)). Instead, the case came to the Eleventh Circuit on appeal, after the District Court had already made its own determination about the viability of Castro's motion. In that posture, we explained, the Eleventh Circuit had not made a “statutorily relevant `denial' of a request” for authorization—even though the court's conclusion “had the ef fect of denying `authorization' ” to Castro. Id., at 380. Against that procedural background, the “ `subject' ” of Castro's certiorari petition was “not the Court of Appeals' `denial of an authorization,' ” so we retained our jurisdiction despite §…

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