In In reGarrett, No. 18-1380 (Nov. 2, 2018) (Wiliam Pryor, Hul, Julie
Carnes), the Court denied an application for authorization to file a second or
successive 2255 motion based on Johnson and Dimaya.
Given the en
banc Court's decision in Ovalles that 924(c)(3)(B) is not
unconstitutionally vague after Dimaya, the Court held that the applicant failed to
satisfy the gatekeeping crtieria in 2255(h), because there was no new rule of
constitutional law, made retroactive by the Supreme Court, that applied to his
claim. The Court made clear that its
ruling would apply to all second or successive applications involving a 924(c)
claim based on Johnson and Dimaya.
