In re: Ronald Evans, a/k/a Freak, a/k/a Man-Man

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-194
In Re: RONALD EVANS, a/k/a Freak, a/k/a Man-Man,
Movant.
On Motion for Authorization to File Successive Application.
(2:92-cr-00163-5)
Argued: September 21, 2011 Decided: October 6, 2011
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Motion granted by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Bryan A. Stevenson, EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE,
Montgomery, Alabama, for Ronald Evans. Richard D. Cooke,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for the United States. ON BRIEF:
Matthew W. Greene, GREENE LAW GROUP PLLC, Springfield, Virginia;
Benjamin W. Maxymuk, EQUAL JUSTICE INITIATIVE, Montgomery,
Alabama, for Ronald Evans. Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for the United States.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
After a jury convicted Ronald Evans of six narcotics crimes
committed as a juvenile and a criminal conspiracy that extended
for some time after his eighteenth birthday, a judge sentenced
him to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
Now, relying on Graham v. Florida, 130 S. Ct. 2011 (2010), Evans
moves for authorization to file a successive habeas application.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(2). At oral argument, the Government
properly acknowledged that in the appropriate case Graham
establishes a previously unavailable rule of constitutional law
that applies retroactively on collateral review. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2244(b)(3)(C), (2)(A). The Government, however, contends that
this is not such a case. Because Evans has made a “prima facie
showing” that his “claim relies on a new rule of constitutional
law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the
Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable,” id., we grant
his motion for authorization to file a successive habeas
application. We of course do not suggest any view on the
ultimate merits of Evans’ claim.
MOTION GRANTED

-- 2 of 2 --