202007P.pdf   09/16/2021  Desmond Rouse  v.  United States
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  20-2007
                          and No:  20-2015
   U.S. District Court for the District of South Dakota - Southern   
   [PUBLISHED] [Loken, Author, with Wollman and Stras, Circuit Judges] 
   Prisoner case - Habeas. The grounds the petitioners asserted in the 
   district court for Rule 60(b) relief - newly discovered evidence in 
   support of a claim previously denied and a subsequent change in 
   substantive law justifying relief - fall squarely within the class of Rule 
   60(b) claims to which the Supreme Court has applied Sec. 2244(b) 
   restrictions, and the motions were an improper attempt to circumvent the 
   procedural requirements of AEDPA; the district court's decision to dismiss 
   the Rule 60(b)(6) motions because they were second or successive claims 
   for Sec. 2255 relief that had not been authorized by the court of appeals 
   under Sec. 2244(b)(3) is affirmed; assuming arguendo that petitioners' 
   Rule 60(b)(6) motions were not unauthorized second or successive motions 
   subject to Sec. 2244(b)3), the district court did not err in determining 
   that the allegations, including claims of newly discovered victim 
   recantations, medical evidence and claims of juror bias, did not meet the 
   extraordinarily high burden of proving actual innocence, a complete 
   miscarriage of justice, or are evidence that would produce an acquittal in 
   a new trial. Judge Stras, concurring.