Where a numerically-second § 2255 motion raises an actionable Brady-Giglio violation that the government suppressed until after the conclusion of the defendant's numerically-first § 2255 motion, and the defendant could not have discovered it until the government revealed it, does the Constitution and this Court's precedent require that the numerically-second § 2255 motion not be subjected to the 'gatekeeping' requirements of a 'second or successive' motion?

QUESTION PRESENTED This case presents a classic example of the injustice that flows from the Eleventh Circuit rule that when the government suppresses material evidence until after the defendant’s numerically-first post-conviction motion is concluded, the defendant may not challenge the government misconduct unless he can satisfy the gatekeeping provision of 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h), requiring a showing of actual innocence. Though bound to follow that rule, the Eleventh Circuit Panel below emphasized that the rule “not only corrodes faith in our system of justice, but it undermines justice itself, and it cannot be allowed.” The Panel thus urged the en banc court to rehear the case and reconsider its rule. The en banc court, however, declined to do so. Petitioner Gino Scott thus respectfully requests certiorari review on the following federal question of exceptional importance: Where a numerically-second § 2255 motion raises an actionable Brady/Giglio! violation that (a) the government suppressed until after the conclusion of the defendant’s numerically-first § 2255 motion, and (b) the defendant could not have discovered until the government revealed it, does the Constitution and this Court’s precedent require that the numerically-second § 2255 motion not be subjected to the “gatekeeping” requirements of a “second or successive” motion? 1 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). i