Case Explained: United States v. Gallimore

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-26 The Tenth Circuit denied Paul Gallimore’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) and dismissed his appeal challenging the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence. The court held that reasonable jurists would not find the district court’s assessment of Gallimore’s constitutional claims debatable or wrong, thereby failing to meet the “substantial showing” standard required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) and *Slack v. McDaniel*. Regarding Gallimore’s claim that his conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) violates the Second Amendment, the court affirmed the district court’s rejection based on Tenth Circuit precedent reaffirming the statute’s constitutionality following *United States v. Rahimi*. Regarding Gallimore’s argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in *Erlinger v. United States* applies retroactively to vacate his Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) enhancement, the court applied the rule from *Teague v. Lane*, noting that new procedural rules generally do not apply retroactively on collateral review unless they are substantive or constitute “watershed rules of criminal procedure.” The court determined that *Erlinger* is a procedural rule regarding jury unanimity and decision-making authority, which does not fit either exception, particularly in light of *Edwards v. Vannoy*, which clarified that no new procedural rules satisfy the watershed exception. Additionally, the court noted that the *Erlinger* argument was raised for the first time on appeal and had not been presented to the district court. As a result of this ruling, Gallimore’s § 2255 motion remains denied, his sentence stands, and the appellate matter is dismissed without further review. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.