I apologize again for the delay in posting. Things have been hectic around here, both work-wise and life-wise. For those of you who follow developments with Padilla retroactivity, this is probably old news. But the Seventh and Tenth Circuits have recently issued opinions holding that Padilla cannot be applied retroactively. Notably, the Seventh Circuit reversed Judge Gotschall’s groundbreaking decision in Chaidez which has been covered extensively in this blog. (See posts here and here.) The case from the Tenth Circuit is United States v. Chang Hong (Case No. 10-6294) and was an appeal from a denial of a 2255 habeas petition. Of note in Hong is that the petitioner there argued that Padilla is a new rule so he could extend the statute of limitations for his habeas claim; his petition was otherwise untimely.
I will have more to say about both decisions soon. Meanwhile, the opinion in Chaidez (including a persuasive dissent) is here, the one in Hong, here.
Meanwhile, it will be interesting to see how these rulings will affect the application for writ of certiorari in Morris (post here) that is currently pending in the Supreme Court on Padilla retroactivity. Will anyone of the losing parties in Chaidez and Hong also appeal to the Supreme Court? If so, which case presents the more ideal vehicle for (a) getting cert granted and (b) reversing the appellate decision on Padilla retroactivity?