1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CARLOS ALBERTO GARCIA, Case No.: 19-cv1353-BEN 12-cr-2999-BEN 7 Movant,

8 v. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO VACATE, SET ASIDE, OR 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CORRECT A SENTENCE UNDER 10 Respondent.

11 12 Movant Carlos Alberto Garcia filed a Motion to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct a 13 Sentence pursuant to

on March 7, 2014. Docket No. 41. The motion 14 was denied on November 3, 2015. Order, Docket No. 47. On July 19, 2019, Garcia filed 15 a second motion for relief pursuant to

. Docket No. 49. 16 Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a 17 district court has only limited authority to hear a claim presented in a second or 18 successive habeas motion. “The court must deny a second or successive motion unless 19 the court of appeals first certifies that the motion relies on a new rule of constitutional 20 law that is retroactively applicable or presents new evidence that meets the criteria set 21 forth in § 2255(h).” Mitchell v. United States, No. 18-17031,

, at *6 22 (9th Cir. Apr. 30, 2020) (citing Burton v. Stewart,

(2007); Gonzalez v. 23 Crosby,

, 531–32 (2005)). 24 Garcia has not obtained the necessary approval from the Court of Appeals to 25 prosecute his second motion. Therefore, the Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct 26 Sentence is DENIED. 27 A court may issue a certificate of appealability where the movant has made a 28 “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” and reasonable jurists could 1 || debate whether the motion should have been resolved differently, or that the issues 2 || presented deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(2003). This Court finds that Movant has not made the necessary showing. A 4 certificate of appealability is therefore DENIED. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. | ly v “ a 6 || Dated: May 15, 2020 4 HON . ROGER T. BENITEZ United States District Court Judge

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28