ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Petitioner seeks to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition as an unauthorized “second or successive” habeas petition. Respondents have filed a letter conceding that the instant petition was not a second or successive petition because the prior habeas petition, while raising similar claims, originated from a different conviction. See Hardeman v. Quarterman, 516 F.3d 272, 275-76 (5th Cir. 2008) (holding that “ ‘to be considered “successive,” a prisoner’s second petition must, in a broad sense, represent a second attack by federal habeas petition on the same conviction’ ” quoting Vasquez v. Par rott, 318 F.3d 387, 390 (2d Cir. 2003)). Therefore, construing Petitioner’s notice of appeal and appellate brief as an implied motion for leave to file a successive petition, see Pease v. Klinger, 115 F.3d 763, 764 (10th Cir. 1997), we dismiss the motion as unnecessary and direct the district court to entertain Petitioner’s habeas petition.