Petitioner Alejandro Vega appeals from a district court judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 petition as a “second or successive” one under AEDPA. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(118) (requiring that second or successive petition by certified by appellate court as satisfying one of two gatekeeping criteria). According to petitioner, his “first” petition was in fact a motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) which the district court, acting without his consent, had recharacterized as a § 2255 petition. If so, that filing would likely “not count as a ‘first’ habeas petition sufficient to trigger AEDPA’s gatekeeping requirements.” Raineri v. United States, 233 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir. 2000).

*22 As the district court found, however, this assertion is factually mistaken. The record reveals that a § 3582(c) motion was filed on May 16, 1997 and was denied in a margin order dated June 3, 1997. Petitioner then filed a separate pleading on November 24, 1997 which was formally styled as a § 2255 petition and was treated as such. The court disposed of that matter in an order dated February 17, 1998. The existence of this earlier § 2255 proceeding renders the instant petition second or successive.

The judgment is affirmed. Alternatively, to the extent the notice of appeal can be construed as a request for leave to file a second or successive petition, that request is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated in the first paragraph of this court’s November 20, 2000 judgment.