{"id":42231,"date":"2020-02-05T21:43:40","date_gmt":"2020-02-06T02:43:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42231"},"modified":"2020-02-05T21:43:40","modified_gmt":"2020-02-06T02:43:40","slug":"ca11-4a-claims-not-cognizable-for-successor-habeas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=42231","title":{"rendered":"CA11: 4A claims not cognizable for successor habeas"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claims can\u2019t be the basis for a successor habeas because none of the statutory grounds are available here. In re Hammond, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3419 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020):<br \/>\n<!--more--><\/p>\n<blockquote><p>Hammond does not raise any other claim that meets the statutory criteria. First, he does not explain how his remaining claims\u2014that his arrest warrants were not properly authenticated, that the state court records lacked issue dates of his arrest warrants, and that there was no record of his indictment being returned in open court\u2014if proven, would establish his factual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, especially given that he pleaded guilty to the armed robbery. See 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii). Notably, Hammond also does not explain how the state court records associated with his 2012 conviction that he relies upon could not have been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence before he filed his first \u00a7 2254 petition in 2016. See id. \u00a7 2244(b)(2)(B)(i); In re Boshears, 110 F.3d 1538, 1540 (11th Cir. 1997) (Authorization will not be granted for a claim predicated on facts that would have been uncovered through a &#8220;reasonable investigation&#8221; undertaken before the initial \u00a7 2254 petition was litigated.). Further, Hammond does not assert that his claims rely on a new rule of constitutional law. See id. \u00a7 2244(b)(2)(A). Thus, Hammond does not state a prima facie claim for relief in his third, fourth, or fifth claims.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Petitioner\u2019s Fourth Amendment claims can\u2019t be the basis for a successor habeas because none of the statutory grounds are available here. In re Hammond, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 3419 (11th Cir. Feb. 4, 2020):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-42231","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42231","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=42231"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42231\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":42232,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42231\/revisions\/42232"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=42231"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=42231"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=42231"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}