Case: 11-14812 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-14812
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cv-21899-ASG ; 1:07cr-20224-ASG-1
MIGUEL BEATO,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllRespondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(July 19, 2012)
Before MARCUS, MARTIN and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Miguel Beato appeals the denial of his motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C.
Case: 11-14812 Date Filed: 07/19/2012 Page: 2 of 2
§ 2255. The sole question before us is whether, under the principles of Teague v.
Lane,
489 U.S. 288,
109 S. Ct. 1060 (1989), the Supreme Court’s decision in
Padilla v. Kentucky, ___ U.S. ___,
130 S. Ct. 1473 (2010), is retroactively
applicable on collateral review, such that Beato’s motion to vacate is timely under
28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3). According to Beato, the Supreme Court in Padilla
established a new and “watershed” rule of criminal procedure. Teague,
489 U.S.
at 311,
109 S. Ct. at 1076. Our recent decision in Figuereo-Sanchez v. United
States, No. 10-14235, ___ F.3d ___,
2012 WL 1499871 (11th Cir. May 1, 2012),
forecloses this argument. See
id. at *3–6. We therefore affirm the judgment of the
district court.
AFFIRMED.
2