UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JOEL SPIEGELMAN, Movant, 23-CV-2345 (JPO) -against- 05-CR-960 (JPO) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TRANSFER ORDER Respondent. J. PAUL OETKEN, United States District Judge: Movant Joel Spiegelman, currently incarcerated at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota, brings this pro se action seeking permission to file a second or successive motion under

, challenging his judgment of conviction entered in United States v. Spiegelman, 05-CR-960, ECF No. 66 (S.D.N.Y. January 28, 2008).1 Movant also filed a motion for the Court to request appointment of pro bono counsel. For the reason set forth below,

the Court transfers this action to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A movant seeking to file a second or successive § 2255 motion must first seek authorization from the appropriate court of appeals..

(b)(3)(A). Movant must therefore submit his request to pursue a second or successive application to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.2

1 Movant previously challenged the same judgment of conviction under § 2255 in a prior action. See ECF 1:10-CV-7579, 22 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2012). 2 Movant must demonstrate that a motion to the Court of Appeals is based on newly discovered evidence or a new rule of constitutional law made retroactive by the Supreme Court. See

(h). CONCLUSION The Clerk of Court is directed to mail a copy of this order to Movant. In the interest of Justice, the Court transfers this motion under § 2255 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. See

; see also Liriano v. United States,

(2d Cir. 1996) (per curiam). The motion requesting assignment of pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice. This order closes this case. If the Court of Appeals authorizes Movant to proceed with a second or successive motion, he shall move to reopen this case under this civil docket number. As the motion makes no substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See

. The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2023 New York, New York

United States District Judge