Williams v. State of Mississippi

Filing 12

UNPUBLISHED ORDER of USCA denying Motion for Authorization to file Successive Habeas. (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (jla)

Case:
Document: 00516666828
Page:
1 Date
03/06/2023
Case:22-60644
4:22-cv-00175-DMB-DAS
Doc #: 12 Filed:
03/06/23
1 of 2Filed:
PageID
#: 109

United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
No. 22-60644
____________
In re Kacy Williams,

A True Copy
Certified order issued Mar 06, 2023

Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

Movant.
______________________________
Motion for an Order Authorizing
the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
to Consider a Successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 Application
USDC No. 4:22-CV-175
______________________________
UNPUBLISHED ORDER
Before Stewart, Willett, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:
Kacy Williams, Mississippi prisoner # 59970, was convicted of
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and was sentenced to life
imprisonment as a habitual offender. He now moves for authorization to file
a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application. Williams argues that he is actually
innocent, that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction, that
his sentence was based on an irrelevant statement by the prosecutor, and that
his sentence was excessive.
We may authorize the filing of a successive § 2254 application only if
the prisoner makes a prima facie showing that the claim relies on (1) “a new

Case:
Document: 00516666828
Page:
2 Date
03/06/2023
Case:22-60644
4:22-cv-00175-DMB-DAS
Doc #: 12 Filed:
03/06/23
2 of 2Filed:
PageID
#: 110

No. 22-60644

rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by
the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” or (2) “the factual
predicate for the claim could not have been discovered previously through
the exercise of due diligence” and 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2)(A), (B); see § 2244(b)(3)(C).
Williams has not made the requisite prima facie showing.
Furthermore, this court “does not recognize freestanding claims of actual
innocence” on postconviction review. In re Swearingen, 556 F.3d 344, 348
(5th Cir. 2009). Also, Williams may not assert his actual innocence as a
gateway that allows him to overcome the bar to successive filing without
satisfying § 2244(b). In re Palacios, 58 F.4th 189, 190 (5th Cir. 2023); Jackson
v. Lumpkin, 25 F.4th 339, 341-42 (5th Cir. 2022).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Williams motion for
authorization to file a successive § 2254 application is DENIED.

2