UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION

RAMORI ROGERS, ) ) Movant, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 4:19-CV-00167-JAR ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Respondent. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on Movant Ramori Rogers’ Motion for Leave to File a Second or Successive § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence. (Doc. 75). This Court previously denied Movant’s initial § 2255 motion (Doc. 64) and motion for reconsideration. (Doc. 71). Movant seeks leave to file a second or successive motion due to “newly discovered prosecutorial misconduct, ineffective assistance of counsel, as well as several violations of [Movant’s] constitutional rights.” (Doc. 75 at 1). Pursuant to

(h), a “second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals.” The requirement that a movant obtain authorization from the court of appeals before filing a second or successive motion is jurisdictional. Burton v. Stewart,

(2007). Because Movant has not obtained such authorization, the instant motion will be denied. This Court may hear Movant’s second or successive motion “if and only if the court of appeals authorizes its filing.” Cotton v. United States, Case No. 4:20-CV-872-JAR,

, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 5, 2020). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Movant Ramori Rogers’ Motion for Leave to File a Second or Successive § 2255 Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence (Doc. 75) is DENIED.

Dated this 10th day of November, 2020.

{ Pore A. ROSS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-