Antonio U. Akel v. United States of America

Holding: A motion to vacate a sentence under Section twenty-eight United States Code Section two thousand two hundred fifty-five is not second or successive when it challenges a new judgment entered after a prior habeas petition.
Standard: De novo review of whether a motion is second or successive
Vote: Unanimous decision by a three-judge panel.
Practical effect: Federal prisoners who obtain a new judgment through a successful collateral attack may file a subsequent motion to vacate that challenges the original conviction without needing prior authorization from the court of appeals.

The Eleventh Circuit held that a federal prisoner's motion to vacate a sentence is not second or successive when it challenges a new judgment entered after a prior habeas petition. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Background

Antonio Akel was convicted in 2008 on multiple counts including drug distribution and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He filed an initial motion under Section twenty-eight United States Code Section two thousand two hundred fifty-five in 2011. Following a Supreme Court remand, the district court resentenced Akel in 2017 due to illegal sentences on two counts, entering an Amended Judgment. Akel later filed another motion to vacate, which the district court dismissed as an unauthorized second or successive motion.

The court’s reasoning

The court applied the framework from Magwood v. Patterson and Insignares v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections. It determined that the 2017 Amended Judgment was a new, intervening judgment because it corrected unlawful sentences and changed the terms of Akel’s confinement. The court rejected the government’s argument that the motion was successive because it challenged an undisturbed conviction, noting that the phrase second or successive applies to the petition as a whole, not individual claims. The court also held that the invited error doctrine was inapplicable because the district court sua sponte determined it lacked jurisdiction over the claims.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion of the Court, Page 19

What it means going forward

Federal prisoners who obtain a new judgment through a successful collateral attack may file a subsequent motion to vacate that challenges the original conviction without needing prior authorization from the court of appeals.