\u201cWren cannot meet the statutory criteria for filing a second or successive \u00a7 2255 motion. First, even assuming that the search warrant is \u2018newly discovered\u2019 insofar as it had been sealed, it does nothing to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable juror would have found him \u2018guilty of the offense.\u2019 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2255(h)(1). The warrant in no way suggests that he did not factually commit the crimes for which he was convicted.\u201d In re Wren, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24485 (6th Cir. Aug. 16, 2019). <\/p>\n
Search claims generally can’t be brought via a successor petition. United States v. Kimball, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24592 (6th Cir. Aug. 19, 2019).<\/p>\n
Defendants get qualified immunity for an arrest on an arrest warrant they sought that was based at least on \u201carguable probable cause.\u201d Just because there was a fact question for a criminal case doesn\u2019t mean it was without any probable cause. They reasonably relied on the arrest warrant and the judicial finding of probable cause. Thus: qualified immunity. Stefani v. City of Grovetown<\/a>, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 24495 (11th Cir. Aug. 16, 2019).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" \u201cWren cannot meet the statutory criteria for filing a second or successive \u00a7 2255 motion. First, even assuming that the search warrant is \u2018newly discovered\u2019 insofar as it had been sealed, it does nothing to establish by clear and convincing … Continue reading