{"id":36454,"date":"2019-02-18T08:33:24","date_gmt":"2019-02-18T13:33:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=36454"},"modified":"2019-02-18T08:33:24","modified_gmt":"2019-02-18T13:33:24","slug":"ca6-no-successor-2255-for-carpenter","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=36454","title":{"rendered":"CA6: No successor 2255 for Carpenter<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"

Petitioner seeks a 2255 successor habeas petition based on Carpenter. It\u2019s denied because: It\u2019s not newly discovered, and it wouldn\u2019t even apply because of the good faith exception. In re Gipson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4457 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, 2019):
\n<\/p>\n

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 \u00a7 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 \u00a7 2254 petition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Petitioner seeks a 2255 successor habeas petition based on Carpenter. It\u2019s denied because: It\u2019s not newly discovered, and it wouldn\u2019t even apply because of the good faith exception. In re Gipson, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 4457 (6th Cir. Feb. 14, … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[84,11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-36454","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cell-site-location-information","category-good-faith-exception"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36454","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=36454"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36454\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":36455,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/36454\/revisions\/36455"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=36454"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=36454"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=36454"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}