Case Explained: ANTONIO U. AKEL v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Filed: 2026-06-18 The eleventh-circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Antonio Akel’s motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court held that the district court erred in classifying Akel’s instant motion as an unauthorized “second or successive” petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The court applied the standard established by *Magwood v. Patterson* and *Insignares v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr.*, which dictates that whether a habeas motion is “second or successive” depends on the judgment being challenged, not the specific claims raised within it. The court determined that Akel’s 2017 Amended Judgment constituted a new, intervening judgment because it was issued after his initial § 2255 motion and corrected unlawful sentences for Counts Two and Seven, thereby authorizing his current confinement. Consequently, any petition challenging this new judgment is not considered second or successive, regardless of whether it includes claims regarding the original conviction on Count One. The court further rejected the government’s argument that Akel “invited error” by moving to dismiss his own motion, noting that the district court sua sponte determined it lacked jurisdiction over the claims before Akel filed the dismissal motion and that courts have an independent obligation to determine subject-matter jurisdiction. As a practical consequence, the district court is required to exercise jurisdiction over Akel’s instant § 2255 motion and proceed to address the merits of his claims on remand, rather than dismissing them as successive. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.