USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 1 of 5

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-11786 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ DAVID BRITT, Petitioner-Appellant, versus KARL FORT,

Respondent-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia D.C. Docket No. 1:20-cv-04304-SCJ ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 2 of 5

Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: David Britt, a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his habeas corpus petition un- der 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Britt argues that the district court erred when it determined that his case is a successive § 2254 petition because Britt had filed a previous federal habeas petition challenging his Georgia state convictions and sentences that the district court de- nied on the merits. After a review of the record and having read Britt’s appellate brief, we affirm the district court’s order of dismis- sal. 1 I.

We review de novo a district court’s order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. Howard v. Warden, 776 F.3d 772, 775 (11th

USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 3 of 5

21-11786 Opinion of the Court 3 Cir. 2015). We also review de novo whether a habeas petition is successive. Patterson v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 849 F.3d 1321, 1324 (11th Cir. 2017) (en banc). A Certificate of Appealability (“COA”), typically required for appeals from a final order of a ha- beas proceeding, is not required for an appeal of an order dismiss- ing a petitioner’s filing as a successive habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); See Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004). We can review the dismissal as a “final decision” under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. See Hubbard, 379 F.3d at 1247.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition must move the court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to con- sider such a petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Whether a ha- beas petition is successive depends “on the judgment challenged.”

Patterson, 849 F.3d at 1325. Where the prisoner fails to seek or USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 4 of 5

II.

We conclude that, based on the record, the district court properly dismissed Britt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction be- cause Britt had previously filed a habeas petition challenging the same convictions and he never received the required authorization to file a successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); Burton, U.S. at 152-53. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Britt’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. 2

2 We DENY Britt’s motion to supplement the record.

USCA11 Case: 21-11786 Date Filed: 10/26/2021 Page: 5 of 5

21-11786 Opinion of the Court 5 AFFIRMED.