Felker v. Turpin ( 1996 )

[PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 96-9346
________________________
ELLIS WAYNE FELKER,
Petitioner,
versus
TONY TURPIN, Warden,
Georgia Diagnostic and
Classification Center,
Respondent.
_______________________
On Motion for Certificate of Probable Cause,
or in the Alternative, Certificate of Appealability
_______________________
(November 14, 1996)
Before BIRCH, BLACK and CARNES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
On May 2, 1996, we denied Ellis Wayne Felker's first
application filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), as amended
by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, for an order permitting him to file
in the district court a second petition for federal habeas relief
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Felker v. Turpin, 83 F.3d 1303 (11th
Cir.), cert. dismissed, 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996). He is now back
before us with an application requesting a certificate of probable
cause to appeal, or a certificate of appealability, permitting an
appeal from the district court's denial of his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)
motion for relief from the January 26, 1994 judgment of that court
denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. For the reasons that
follow, we deny that application.
I.
The procedural history, evidence, and facts in this case are
set out: (1) in the Georgia Supreme Court's decision affirming
Felker's convictions and sentence on direct appeal, Felker v.
State, 252 Ga. 351, 314 S.E.2d 621, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105
S. Ct. 229 (1984); (2) in our opinion affirming the denial of
Felker's first federal habeas petition, Felker v. Thomas, 52 F.3d
907 (11th Cir.), extended on denial of rehearing, 62 F.3d 342 (11th
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 956 (1996); (3) in our opinion
denying Felker's first application to file a second habeas
petition, Felker v. Turpin, 83 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 1996); and (4)
in the Supreme Court's opinion dismissing Felker's petition seeking
certiorari review of our decision, and denying his petition for an
original writ of habeas corpus, Felker v. Turpin, 116 S. Ct. 2333
(1996). Therefore, we will limit our discussion of the procedural
history to the events that have transpired since the Supreme
Court's decision on June 28, 1996.
On August 30, 1996, the Superior Court of Houston County,
Georgia, set September 10 through September 17, 1996, as the period
2
during which Felker's execution would be carried out. The State
scheduled that execution for 2:00 p.m. ET, September 10, 1996. On
September 5, 1996, Felker filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County, Georgia. (It was his
third state habeas petition.) The Superior Court denied that
petition on September 6, 1996. Three days later, on September 9,
1996, the Georgia Supreme Court denied Felker's application for a
certificate of probable cause to appeal that denial and denied his
motion for a stay of execution. On September 10, Felker applied to
the United States Supreme Court for a stay. The Supreme Court
denied that application. However, Felker was not executed on
September 10, because he obtained a stay from the Houston County
Superior Court in a separate proceeding brought under the Georgia
Open Records Act, Ga. Code. Ann. § 50-18-70 to -76 (1994).
On May 2, 1996, prior to filing his third state habeas
petition, Felker had filed an Open Records Act lawsuit in the
Superior Court of Houston County. In that lawsuit, Felker sought
production of documents related to Felker's conviction. On
September 2, 1996, Felker filed a mandamus petition in the Georgia
Supreme Court, seeking to compel the Houston County Superior Court
to rule on his Open Records Act lawsuit. On September 6, 1996, the
Georgia Supreme Court entered an order requiring the Houston County
Superior Court to consider and rule upon Felker's lawsuit within 48
hours.
On September 8, 1996, the Houston County Superior Court held
a hearing on Felker's Open Records Act lawsuit. At that hearing,
3
a box of documents was turned over to Felker's counsel, and the
hearing was continued to the following day. On September 9, 1996,
the Superior Court stayed Felker's execution until 2:00 p.m. ET,
September 12, 1996. On September 10, the Superior Court extended
the stay of execution until 2:00 p.m. ET, September 14, 1996. On
September 12, 1996, the Superior Court, having concluded its Open
Records Act hearing, denied Felker's motion for summary judgment on
his Open Records Act claim, denied Felker's motion to withdraw the
pending execution warrant, and denied his motion for an additional
stay of execution. Thereafter, Felker's execution was rescheduled
for 3:00 p.m. ET, September 14, 1996.
On September 12, 1996, Felker appealed to the Supreme Court of
Georgia, seeking a stay of execution, review of the Superior
Court's Open Records Act ruling, and reconsideration of the Georgia
Supreme Court's prior denial of a certificate of probable cause to
appeal the denial of Felker's third state habeas petition. On the
same day, the Georgia Supreme Court stayed Felker's execution for
forty days and directed the Houston County Superior Court to make
findings of fact and conclusions of law regarding Felker's Open
Records Act lawsuit. During the forty-day stay of execution, the
Georgia Supreme Court denied Felker's motion for reconsideration.
On September 23, 1996, the Houston County Superior Court
entered written findings of fact and conclusions of law, concluding
that the district attorney had complied with Felker's Open Records
Act request. Felker again appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
While that appeal was pending, Felker's execution was rescheduled
4
for 7:00 p.m. ET, November 14, 1996. On October 28, 1996, Felker
filed a motion with the Georgia Supreme Court for a stay of
execution. On October 30, 1996, the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed
the judgment of the Houston County Superior Court with respect to
Felker's Open Records Act lawsuit, and denied Felker's motion for
a stay.
On November 8, 1996, Felker, acting jointly with another
Georgia death row inmate, Larry Lonchar, filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction and complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia. The basis for that
§ 1983 action was a contention that death by electrocution is a
cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment
of the United States Constitution. On November 12, 1996, the
district court denied Felker's motion for a preliminary injunction
and denied his request for declaratory and injunctive relief. He
appealed, and on November 13, 1996, another panel of this Court
affirmed denial of that relief. Felker v. Turpin, No. 96-9334
(11th Cir. Nov. 13, 1996). Thereafter, Felker filed in the United
States Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari and a
motion for stay of execution. On November 14, 1996, the Supreme
Court denied both.
On November 11, 1996, Felker filed his fourth state habeas
petition, together with a motion for a stay of execution, in the
Butts County Superior Court. On the following day, that court
dismissed Felker's petition and denied his motion for a stay of
5
execution. On November 12, 1996, Felker applied to the Georgia
Supreme Court for a stay of execution and for a certificate of
probable cause to appeal the denial of his fourth habeas petition.
On November 14, 1996, the Georgia Supreme Court denied all
requested relief.
On the afternoon of November 14, 1996, Felker filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia a
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1), (2), (3),
and (6), for relief from the January 26, 1994 judgment of that
court denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. He also filed a
motion for a stay of execution. The district court denied Felker's
Rule 60(b) motion on two grounds. First, it held that the motion
was untimely under the express provisions of the rule itself and
applicable case law. Second, the district court held that even if
the Rule 60(b) motion had been timely filed under that rule itself,
the court would still have denied it. The court explained that the
motion for Rule 60(b) relief was tantamount to a second or
successive petition, and Felker had failed to obtain from this
Court an authorization to file it, as required by 28 U.S.C. §
2244(b)(3)(A), as amended. Felker applied to the district court
for a certificate permitting him to appeal, and the district court
denied that application, also.
6
Felker filed a notice of appeal, and he has now filed with us
an application for a certificate of probable cause, or in the
alternative, for a certificate of appealability.1
II.
Felker's Rule 60(b) motion for relief from judgment was
properly denied by the district court, because it was due to be
treated as a second or successive habeas corpus application. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A), as amended by the Antiterrorism and
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.
1214, requires that an applicant move in the appropriate court of
appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider
such an application. Felker failed to do so. Instead, he contends
that his Rule 60(b) motion should not be treated as a successive
petition. We disagree.
Although Felker argues that his Rule 60(b) motion "does not
implicate any considerations of 'successive' petitions," he
acknowledges decisions from other circuits "that hold to the
contrary, construing Rule 60(b) motions as essentially identical to
successive petitions." See Memorandum of Law in Support of
Petitioner's Motion for Relief from Judgment at 2 n.2 (M.D. Ga.
1
Although Felker's actual application to this Court came only
at the eleventh hour before his execution, the prior pleadings,
motions, and briefs of the parties in other state and federal
courts, and the opinions and orders of those courts, were lodged
with this Court as they were generated. Because of that, we have
been able to consider the contentions and arguments of the parties
before Felker's application was actually formally filed with this
Court.
7
Nov. 14, 1996). Felker cites as examples of decisions contrary to
his position Clark v. Lewis, 1 F.3d 814, 825-26 (9th Cir. 1993)
("authority suggests, however, that where a habeas petitioner tries
to raise new facts ... not included in prior proceedings in a Rule
60(b) motion, such motion should be treated as the equivalent of a
second petition for writ of habeas corpus"); Blair v. Armontrout,
976 F.2d 1130, 1134 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2357
(1993) ("a motion to remand was the functional equivalent of a
second or successive habeas corpus petition, and that if such
petition would be dismissed as abusive of the writ, the motion to
remand should also be denied"); Kyles v. Whitley, 5 F.3d 806, 808
(5th Cir. 1993) (citing an earlier order in that case holding that
petitioner's Rule 60(b) motion was due to be denied on the ground
that "a petitioner may not use a Rule 60(b) motion to raise
constitutional claims that were not included in the original
petition"), rev'd on other grounds, 115 S. Ct. 1555 (1995). Then,
citing no court decision in support of his position, Felker
dismisses those contrary decisions as representing a "questionable
practice."
What Felker fails to come to grips with is that the
established law of this circuit, like the decisions he acknowledges
from other circuits, forecloses his position that Rule 60(b)
motions are not constrained by successive petition rules. See,
e.g., Scott v. Singletary, 38 F.3d 1547, 1553 (11th Cir. 1994)
("The district court chose to construe the [Rule 60(b)] motion as
a subsequent petition for habeas corpus and we will review the
8
district court's denial of relief in the same light."); Lindsey v.
Thigpen, 875 F.2d 1509, 1515 (11th Cir. 1989) (stating that even if
the death row inmate's claim is meritorious "the proper posture in
which to raise that claim is a successive petition for habeas
corpus )) not in a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)"); Booker
v. Dugger, 825 F.2d 281, 284-85 n.7 (11th Cir. 1987) ("We also note
that the requirements of federal habeas corpus, including the abuse
of the writ standard applied to successive writs, Rule 9(b), 28
U.S.C. § 2254, may properly be superimposed on this independent
action [filed under Rule 60(b)]."). Rule 60(b) cannot be used to
circumvent restraints on successive habeas petitions. That was
true before the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act was
enacted, and it is equally true, if not more so, under the new act.
See Felker, 116 S. Ct. at 2340 ("The Act also codifies some of the
pre-existing limits on successive petitions, and further restricts
the availability of relief to habeas petitioners.")
Felker also argues that his Rule 60(b) motion does not bring
into play the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
amendments to the habeas statute, because the underlying ruling
that he seeks to amend, the denial of his first habeas petition,
became final with the denial of rehearing on certiorari on April
15, 1996. That was nine days before the new act went into effect
on April 24, 1996. However, in Felker, 116 S. Ct. 2333 (1996), the
Supreme Court applied the successive petition restrictions of the
new act, which are to be codified as amendments to § 2244(b), to
Felker's attempt to file a second habeas proceeding after the
9
effective date of the act, even though his first habeas petition
had been filed and decided before. Likewise, we hold that the
successive petition restrictions contained in the amendments to §
2244(b) apply to Rule 60(b) proceedings, even where those
proceedings seek to amend a judgment that became final before the
effective date of the amendments. Because Felker's Rule 60(b)
proceeding was due to be treated as a second or successive habeas
corpus application, and because he failed to move in this Court for
an order authorizing the district court to consider that
application, as he was required to do by § 2244(b)(3)(A), the
district court's denial of his motion was entirely proper, and he
has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), as
amended, before a certificate of appealability may be issued.
III.
Alternatively, even if we treat Felker's application for a
certificate of appealability as a request that we authorize him to
file a second or successive habeas application, such a request is
due to be denied, because the claims do not fall within the §
2244(b)(2)(A) or (B) exception.
A.
All of the claims that Felker raises are Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963), claims, and none of them
"relies on a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to
10
cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was
previously unavailable," as required by § 2244(b)(2)(A).
Accordingly, that first exception to the bar against second
petitions raising new claims is inapplicable.
B.
The second exception is also inapplicable, because this is not
a case where "the factual predicate for the claim could not have
been discovered previously through the exercise of due diligence,"
as required by § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i). It is undisputed that Felker
discovered what he asserts as the factual predicate for each of his
claims as a result of his filing a Georgia Open Records Act lawsuit
in May of this year. In a November 12, 1996 order, the Superior
Court of Butts County, Georgia denied Felker's fourth state habeas
petition, which raised claims identical to those in this
proceeding. In doing so, the court found that "[a]ll of the claims
in the present petition are based on information which counsel
obtained pursuant to the Open Records Act proceedings," and that
"[i]t is clear that counsel for Petitioner could have sought this
information prior to the first state habeas petition being filed in
1984," because nothing prevented him from filing the Open Records
Act lawsuit twelve years ago. Felker v. Turpin, No. 96-V-655, at
2 (Sup. Ct. Butts County Nov. 12, 1996) (order dismissing petition
and denying stay of execution).
Likewise, it follows that there is no reason that Felker could
not have filed the same Open Records Act lawsuit before he filed
11
his first federal habeas petition three years ago. Despite having
an opportunity to do so in both his state and federal filings,
Felker has not suggested any reason why such a lawsuit would not
have been just as available before he filed his first habeas
petition as it was after he had unsuccessfully litigated that
petition.
C.
Because Felker has failed to satisfy the first prong of
§ 2244(b)(2)(B), we need not consider the second prong of that
provision. However, for the sake of completeness, we point out
that even if Felker could satisfy the subdivision (i) provision, he
still could not satisfy the subdivision (ii) provision, which
requires that "the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed
in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
applicant guilty of the underlying offense," § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
The Brady claims Felker seeks to get over the second petition
bar in this proceeding involve three pieces of previously
undisclosed evidence turned up by his Open Records Act lawsuit.
The first is a partial transcript of an interview of Katherine Gray
by law enforcement officers. Some background facts about Ms. Gray
and a discussion of Felker's first habeas petition Brady claim
involving her are contained in Felker v. Thomas, 52 F.3d at 909-11,
as extended, 62 F.3d at 343. Ms. Gray did not testify at trial,
12
and we have previously held that if she had, she would have done
Felker at least as much harm as good. The reason is that she would
have placed Felker with the victim, Joy Ludlam, even closer to the
date of her death and in direct contradiction to Felker's own sworn
testimony. Id.
Ms. Gray was first interviewed by law enforcement officers on
December 11, 1981, and at that time she picked out of a photo
spread a photograph of the man she said she had seen with the
victim, Joy Ludlam. The photograph she picked out was of Felker,
or at least that is what law enforcement officers told her shortly
after that first photo spread, which came just days after the
events she had witnessed. See 52 F.3d at 910 n.2; Deposition of
Katherine Gray 6, 9, 30-31, 33-34 (February 13, 1985). The partial
transcript in question "if proven," see § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii), would
merely establish what happened when law enforcement officers re-
interviewed Ms. Gray sometime after September 15, 1982.2 While
2
The partial transcript is undated. However, in it the
officers refer to Ms. Gray's having talked to some officers "last
year shortly after this case" arose, which would have been in
November or December of 1981. Ms. Gray had in fact talked to
officers and viewed a photo spread on December 11, 1981. See
Felker v. Thomas, 52 F.3d at 910 n.2. For that to be "last year"
the partially transcribed interview would have had to have taken
place sometime in 1982. Moreover, the transcript discusses Ms.
Gray's having talked with Fred Hasty, who was Felker's trial
counsel. We know from Mr. Hasty's testimony in the state habeas
proceeding that he first talked with Ms. Gray on September 15,
1982. Therefore, the partial transcript is of an interview that
took place sometime after September 15, 1982. It is also likely
that the partially transcribed interview occurred before the trial,
which began in January of 1983.
13
they were questioning her, Ms. Gray tried to get the officers to
tell her if the picture she had picked out of the photo spread as
the man who had been with the victim shortly before the crime was
Felker. The officers did not tell her. The relevant part of the
exchange is as follows:
Q: This guy that was with 'em, would you say that
he's my height or taller than I am
A: I think he was a little taller than you, he
had on boots
Q: A little bit taller, I'd like for you to look
at these photographs and see if you see
anybody that looks like him
A: This looks something like him...but his beard,
this was cut down, you know, like he had come
from a barber shop
Q: Trimmed down? okay
A: I picked the wrong guy, didn't I
Q: Well, we don't know. How long do you reckon
they were in the store?
A: (inaudible) less than 45 minutes, not more
than 45.
Partially Transcribed Interview with Katherine Gray 4 (undated).
Felker extrapolates from that one question, "I picked the wrong
guy, didn't I" the conclusion that Ms. Gray actually did identify
someone other than Felker as the man she had seen with the victim.
That conclusion simply does not follow. The law enforcement
officer questioning her did not acknowledge that she had picked out
anyone other than Felker at that second photo spread, and there is
no evidence that she did.
14
Moreover, it must be remembered that because Ms. Gray did not
testify as a witness for the prosecution at the trial, we are not
talking about impeachment. To the extent that the partial
transcript might cast any doubt upon Ms. Gray's credibility as a
witness, it is irrelevant, because she was not a witness. Instead,
Felker's Brady claim rests upon the theory that had he been aware
of the partial transcript at the time of trial, he could have
called Ms. Gray to testify that she had seen the victim in the
company of a man other than Felker shortly before the victim was
killed. The problem with that, of course, is that Felker has not
established that she would have so testified. Even if she had, her
testimony would have been thoroughly impeached and discredited by
the fact that just days after the events in question, she had
selected out of a photo spread a picture of Felker as the man whom
she had seen with the victim. The partial transcript, if
authenticated and proven to be an accurate recounting of an
interview and second photo lineup session that took place at least
nine months later, when "viewed in light of the evidence as a
whole, would [not] be sufficient to establish by a clear and
convincing evidence that ... no reasonable factfinder would have
found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense,"
§ 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
The second piece of new evidence that Felker discovered as a
result of his Open Records Act lawsuit is a transcript of a January
22, 1982 jailhouse interview of Felker by an officer named Enckler.
This transcript is relevant, Felker says, not to anything Officer
15
Enckler testified to at trial, but instead to the testimony of
another witness, Officer Upshaw. At trial, Upshaw testified that
when he had questioned Felker on the night of November 25, 1981,
Felker had told him that on November 24, 1981, the victim had
called in sick to her work place from Felker's house.
At trial, the defense tried to get Officer Upshaw's testimony
about that admission by Felker excluded as the unreliable product
of an hypnosis session that Upshaw had undergone on January 21,
1982. The trial court overruled defense objections after finding
that Upshaw had an independent recollection of Felker having made
that statement to him. So what does all of this have to do with
the previously undisclosed transcript of Officer Enckler's January
22, 1982 interview of Felker? Everything, argues Felker, because
the transcript shows that Enckler questioned Felker about making
that statement to Upshaw. That otherwise unremarkable fact is made
remarkable, Felker contends, because it happened just one day after
Upshaw's hypnosis session. From that chronology, Felker leaps to
the conclusion that Officer Upshaw must not have remembered Felker
making the statement to him until Upshaw was hypnotized.
Therefore, Upshaw's testimony about the statement was a product of
hypnosis and should have been excluded.
In rejecting this specific Brady claim, the Superior Court of
Butts County pointed out that, because Felker was the one being
interviewed by Officer Enckler, he can hardly claim that the
questions he was asked were suppressed from him by the state. At
all relevant times, Felker knew what Enckler had asked him and
16
when. Felker v. Turpin, No. 96-V-655, at 3 (Sup. Ct. Butts County
Nov. 12, 1996).
Putting that problem with Felker's theory to the side, it is
readily apparent that there are two other glaring problems with it.
First, his whole theory is based on the premise that because
Officer Enckler asked Felker questions about his statement to
Officer Upshaw just one day after Upshaw had been hypnotized, that
proves Upshaw must not have remembered Felker making the statement
until Upshaw underwent hypnosis. That conclusion simply does not
follow. Another critical problem with Felker's theory about this
evidence is that even if Upshaw's testimony about the statement had
been excluded, the evidence against Felker still would have been
more than sufficient to convict. Certainly, we cannot say of the
transcript of Officer Enckler's interview of Felker that, "if
proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, [it] would
be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that,
but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have
found the applicant guilty of the underlying offense," §
2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
The third piece of evidence turned up by Felker's Open Records
Act lawsuit is a purported "confession" by another prison inmate,
whom Felker says has a prior conviction for rape. This document,
which is dated January 22, 1988, or five years after the trial,
purports to be handwritten "by John Harrison for Chaplain Elliott
Lyons" and bears the signature of Daniel Thomas Sylvester. The
document says that Joy Ludlam, who is described as having worked as
17
either a security guard or clerk at the Warner Robbins Holiday Inn,
asked "Danny Sylvester" to tie her to the bed and kiss her, but
that he got carried away and raped her. After that, according to
the "confession," Ms. Ludlam said: "It's knife time," and that she
was a "sacrificial lamb of God." So, according to the
"confession," Sylvester then choked her and after she passed out,
he cut her with a knife and used the knife to mutilate her in the
anal and vaginal area. For reasons the document does not reveal,
all of this is said to have taken place at Felker's house, or at
his parents' house. No explanation is given about how Sylvester
gained access to either of those two places.
This so-called "confession" is patently unreliable on its
face. Ms. Ludlam worked as a cocktail waitress, not as a security
guard or clerk; she was strangled to death, not stabbed; and her
body was not sexually mutilated with a knife. Furthermore, there
is no indication that she would have asked anyone to tie her up and
kill her, but there is undisputed evidence that Felker had a
proclivity for engaging in bondage and sadistic sexual practices.
Felker v. Thomas, 52 F.3d 907, 908 (11th Cir.), extended on denial
of rehearing, 62 F.3d 342 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.
Ct. 956 (1996); Felker v. State, 252 Ga. 351, 364-65, 314 S.E.2d
621, 635-36, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 873, 105 S. Ct. 229 (1984).
Section 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) requires as an initial matter that
the facts asserted state a claim of constitutional error. Because
the alleged confession in this case did not exist until five years
after the trial, the state cannot be charged with a Brady violation
18
for failing to disclose it at trial. At most, a post-trial
confession from another person would be relevant to a Herrera v.
Collins, 506 U.S. 390, 113 S. Ct. 853 (1993), claim of actual
innocence, and Felker has not attempted to make a Herrera claim in
this case. Therefore, Felker has failed to satisfy
§ 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii) for that reason. In addition, even if there
were a constitutional violation which could be used as a vehicle
for gaining consideration of the purported confession document,
there is simply no way that that document, with all of its
discrepancies, would have prevented any reasonable factfinder from
finding Felker guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.
We have also considered Felker's three Brady claims jointly,
as well as separately, and we have considered the new evidence
those claims rely upon along with all of the new evidence his
earlier Brady claims relied upon. After doing so, we are convinced
that, "the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in
light of the evidence as a whole, would [not] be sufficient to
establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for
constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder would have found the
applicant guilty of the underlying offense," § 2244(b)(2)(B)(ii).
Therefore, even if Felker could not have discovered the factual
predicates for the claims "previously through the exercise of due
diligence," § 2244(b)(2)(B)(i), he would still not be entitled to
authorization to file a second habeas petition containing the
claims.
19
IV. CONCLUSION
Felker's application for a certificate of appealability,
taken as such, and also construed as an application, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3), as amended, for an order authorizing the
district court to consider his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a
second or successive petition for habeas corpus relief, is denied.
20