Background
Paul Gallimore, a federal prisoner, pleaded guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and received a sentence enhanced under the Armed Career Criminal Act. He later filed a motion to vacate his sentence, raising claims that the statute violated the Second Amendment and that a new Supreme Court rule regarding jury findings should apply retroactively. The district court denied the motion and a certificate of appealability.
The court’s reasoning
The court applied the standard that reasonable jurists must find the district court’s assessment debatable or wrong to grant a certificate of appealability. Regarding the Second Amendment claim, the court noted that the Tenth Circuit has categorically reaffirmed the constitutionality of the felon-in-possession statute following the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rahimi. Regarding the retroactivity claim, the court explained that the Erlinger rule is procedural and does not fall within the exceptions for substantive changes or watershed rules of criminal procedure.
What it means going forward
Federal prisoners seeking to challenge felon-in-possession convictions or argue for the retroactive application of Erlinger on collateral review face a high bar, as the Tenth Circuit has closed these specific avenues for appeal.