CA6: No successor 2255 for Carpenter

Petitioner seeks a 2255 successor habeas petition based on Carpenter. It’s denied because: It’s not newly discovered, and it wouldn’t even apply because of the good faith exception. In re Gipson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4457 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2019):

To the extent that Gipson attempts to raise claims that were not raised in his prior petition, he cannot meet the statutory criteria for filing a second or successive habeas corpus petition. First, none of Gipson’s proposed claims rely upon newly discovered evidence. Second, even if Carpenter were retroactively applicable to Gipson’s case, the good-faith exception to the warrant requirement would apply insofar as law enforcement officers obtained Gipson’s CSLI pursuant to a valid subpoena issued under then-existing state law regarding business records. See Ohio Rev. Code § 2317.40; United States v. Ibarra-Banuelos, No. 17-6466, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 981, *1-2 (6th Cir. Jan. 10, 2019) (rejecting the defendant’s argument that he is entitled to a new trial because his CSLI was rendered inadmissible in light of Carpenter, reasoning that the good-faith exception applies because the government obtained the CSLI pursuant to a court order issued under the Stored Communications Act). Gipson therefore has failed to make a prima facie showing that he is entitled to authorization to file a second or successive § 2254 petition.