The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Friday to hear a Florida man's challenge to his 24-year bank robbery sentence, a case that aims to resolve a circuit split over whether federal prisoners can file multiple motions to vacate their convictions.
The justices' order granted certiorari to federal prisoner Michael Bowe, who pled guilty in 2009 to attempted robbery of an armored car outside a Wachovia Bank in West Palm Beach, Florida. Bowe has filed numerous appeals over the years as the precedent around firearm sentencing has evolved.
The Eleventh Circuit rejected Bowe's latest challenge by saying the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which bars repeat habeas corpus petitions by state prisoners, also applies to federal inmates. The Second, Third, Fifth, Seventh and Eighth circuits have made similar findings, but the Fourth, Sixth and Ninth circuits disagree.
"The Section 2244(b)(1) question presented here warrants review," Bowe wrote in his to the justices. "The parties agree that the circuits are divided 6-3 on whether the bar in Section 2244(b)(1) applies only to state-prisoner habeas corpus applications filed under Section 2254, or whether it also applies to federal-prisoner motions to vacate filed under Section 2255."
Now the justices have agreed to resolve this circuit split. Bowe is asking the court to hold that the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act is unambiguous in barring only repetitions of state prisoner appeals, saying the circuits who've ruled otherwise "have substituted their policy judgment for Congress' judgment in the plain text."
The government's opposed the cert grant, saying language in the act divests the Supreme Court of jurisdiction over these types of midlevel appeals court rulings.
The U.S. Department of Justice also argued that new precedent should not change Bowe's 24-year prison term for the bank robbery. The government did, however, share Bowe's view as to the underlying circuit split.
"The government agrees with petitioner that Section 2244(b)(1) does not apply to Section 2255 motions, that the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise," it wrote.
Counsel and representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday.
Bowe is represented by Andrew L. Adler of the Federal Public Defender's Office for the Southern District of Florida.
The government is represented by Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Nicole M. Argentieri and Ann O'Connell Adams of the U.S. Department of Justice.
The case is Michael Bowe v. U.S., case number 24-5438, in the Supreme Court of the United States.
--Editing by Brian Baresch.
Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
极速赛车
|The Practice of Law
Access to Justice
Aerospace & Defense
Appellate
Asset Management
Banking
Bankruptcy
Benefits
California
Cannabis
Capital Markets
Class Action
Colorado
Commercial Contracts
Competition
Compliance
Connecticut
Construction
Consumer Protection
Corporate
Cybersecurity & Privacy
Delaware
Employment
Energy
Environmental
Fintech
Florida
Food & Beverage
Georgia
Government Contracts
Health
Hospitality
Illinois
Immigration
Insurance
Intellectual Property
International Arbitration
International Trade
Legal Ethics
Legal Industry
Life Sciences
Massachusetts
Media & Entertainment
Mergers & Acquisitions
Michigan
Native American
极速赛车 Pulse
|Business of Law
极速赛车 Authority
|Deep News & Analysis
Healthcare Authority
Deals & Corporate Governance Digital Health & Technology Other Policy & ComplianceGlobal
- 极速赛车
- 极速赛车 Pulse
- 极速赛车 Employment Authority
- 极速赛车 Tax Authority
- 极速赛车 Insurance Authority
- 极速赛车 Real Estate Authority
- 极速赛车 Healthcare Authority
- 极速赛车 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- 极速赛车 In-Depth
- 极速赛车 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Leaderboard Analytics
- Regional Powerhouses
- 极速赛车's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- 极速赛车 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
This article has been saved to your Briefcase
This article has been added to your Saved Articles
High Court To Weigh Repeat Federal Prisoner Appeals
By Rachel Scharf | January 17, 2025, 6:51 PM EST · Listen to article