CA5: Padilla Not Retroactive - U.S. v. Amer

"[W]e join the Seventh and Tenth Circuits in holding that Padilla announced a “new” rule within the meaning of Teague. ... [W]e hold that the rule announced in Padilla is “new” within the meaning of Teague, and accordingly, it does not apply retroactively and may not serve as the basis for Amer’s collateral challenge to his conviction that had already become final when Padilla was decided. Therefore, we REVERSE the district court’s order granting Amer’s motion to vacate his sentence and REMAND for further proceedings, not inconsistent with this opinion." - U.S. v. Amer, May 10, 2012.