In In re Price, No. 20-12133 (July 7, 2020) (Ed
Carnes, Luck, Lagoa), the Court denied a pro se application for
leave to file a second or successive 2255 motion based on both Davis and
Rehaif.
As for the Davis claim, the applicant challenged his
924(c) convictions predicated on both bank robbery and conspiracy to commit bank
robbery. Although the jury returned a
general verdict, and although the Court had not yet determined whether the latter
offense remained a “crime of violence” after Davis, it was certain that
the jury relied on the former offense, which did remain a “crime of violence”
after Davis. The Court was
certain because the district court instructed the jury that it could find him
guilty of the 924(c) offense only if it found him guilty of the corresponding
bank robbery offense.
As for the Rehaif claim, that decision did not
announce a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme
Court. It therefore failed to satisfy
the gatekeeping criteria in 2255(h)(2) to file a second or successive 2255 motion.
