023103P.pdf   02/26/2014  Andrew Sasser  v.  Ray Hobbs
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  02-3103
                          and No:  11-3346
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Order Denying Petition for Rehearing by Panel. For the panel's opinion in 
   the case, see Sasser v. Hobbs, 735 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 2013). 
  
023103P.pdf   11/15/2013  Andrew Sasser  v.  Ray Hobbs
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  02-3103
                          and No:  11-3346
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas - Texarkana   
   [PUBLISHED] [Riley, Author, with Wollman and Melloy, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. For the court's prior opinion in this Arkansas 
   death penalty case, see Sasser v. Norris, 553 F.3d 1121 (8th Cir. 2009). 
   In determining that Sasser was not mentally retarded, the district court 
   misconstrued Arkansas's standards for determining retardation by reading a 
   strict "IQ score requirement" into the Arkansas statute defining mental 
   retardation and by not considering all evidence of Sasser's intellectual 
   functioning; further, the district court misunderstood the relationship 
   between "a significant defecit or impairment in adaptive functioning" 
   under Ark. Code. Ann. Sec. 5-4-618(a)(1)(A) and the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic 
   criteria; because of these errors, the district court did not answer the 
   question Atkins requires it to answer - under Arkansas law did Sasser 
   prove by a preponderance of evidence that he had significant limitations 
   in adaptive functioning in at least two of the skill areas set out in the 
   statute; combined with an error in the timing of the proof, these errors 
   left this court unable to safely say that it would be unreasonable to find 
   Sasser mentally retarded; the finding that Sasser is not mentally retarded 
   is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings under the 
   correct legal standard; applying Trevino v. Thaler, 133 S. Ct. 1911 
   (2013), Arkansas did not "as a systematic matter" afford Sasser meaningful 
   review of his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, 
   and Sasser is entitled to an evidentiary hearing with respect to four of 
   his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel at sentencing; Sasser was 
   not entitled to habeas relief on his claim regarding an incomplete 
   instruction on attempted rape and kidnapping.