United States v. Hahn

Circuit 10Aug 7, 2026

Split Score

SplitScore: 51/100

Case Summary

Disposition

Affirmed

The Tenth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Marcus Hahn’s second-or-successive § 2255 motion challenging his drug-related convictions after Sessions v. Dimaya. Although Hahn’s Dimaya argument was jurisdictionally proper, the panel held the motion was untimely and that Hahn failed to satisfy the miscarriage-of-justice (actual innocence) exception because he did not show innocence of equally serious child-exploitation charges that were dismissed as part of his plea agreement.

View Full Opinion Document (PDF)

Circuit Split Identified

Legal Issue

Whether, under Bousley v. United States, a habeas petitioner invoking the miscarriage-of-justice exception must prove actual innocence of dismissed charges that are equally serious (as well as more serious) than the convictions being challenged.

Circuit Positions

Circuit 6Circuit 7Circuit 10(this circuit)

Actual innocence must cover equally serious and more serious dismissed charges obtained through the plea agreement.

Circuit 8

Actual innocence need be shown only for dismissed charges that are more serious; equally serious charges are irrelevant.

Conflict Summary

The 6th, 7th, and now 10th Circuits hold that the actual-innocence showing must extend to any dismissed charges that are equally serious or more serious than the conviction at issue, while the 8th Circuit requires the petitioner to address only dismissed charges that are more serious, not those of equal seriousness.

Parties & Counsel

Parties

Appellant:Marcus Hahn
Appellee:United States of America

Legal Counsel

Appellant:Mark T. Baker, Peifer, Hanson, Mullins & Baker, P.A., Albuquerque, NM (plus Marcus Hahn, pro se).
Appellee:Tiffany L. Walters, Assistant U.S. Attorney, with Todd Blanche (Acting U.S. Attorney) and Ryan Ellison (First Assistant U.S. Attorney), District of New Mexico.