USCA11 Case: 22-13527 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-13527 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ THEODORE VAZQUEZ, Petitioner, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

Before WILSON, JORDAN, and LUCK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Theodore Vazquez, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, ap- peals the district court’s dismissal of his Rule 60(b)(6) motion as an USCA11 Case: 22-13527 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 22-10968 unauthorized second or successive motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Following a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we affirm.

In 2019, Mr. Vazquez filed a § 2255 motion to vacate alleging that his counsel had rendered ineffective assistance by failing to ob- ject to the use of his 1999 Florida narcotics conviction as a predicate offense for enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

The district court denied his § 2255 motion, concluding that Mr. Vazquez was subject to an ACCA-enhanced sentence because of a 2011 Florida conviction for trafficking of cocaine. See Fla. Stat. § 893.135. As a result, even if counsel had objected to the use of the 1999 conviction, the 2011 conviction would have sufficed to sen- tence Mr. Vazquez under the ACCA. In other words, Mr. Vazquez could not show prejudice. See D.E. 15 at 5-7.

Mr. Vazquez then filed a Rule 60(b)(6) motion, arguing that the district court’s reliance on the 2011 conviction for its lack-of- prejudice determination was erroneous. The district court dis- missed the motion, reasoning that it attacked the prior resolution of the § 2255 motion on the merits and was therefore an unauthor- ized second or successive motion to vacate.

We review de novo the district court’s conclusion that Mr. Vazquez’s Rule 60(b)(6) motion was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion. See Ferris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Exercising plenary review, we conclude that the district court’s ruling was correct.

USCA11 Case: 22-13527 Document: 27-1 Date Filed: 09/05/2023 Page: 3 of 3

22-10968 Opinion of the Court 3 A Rule 60(b)(6) motion is an impermissibly second or suc- cessive § 2255 motion to vacate if, among other things, it “attacks the federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits, since alleging that the [c]ourt erred in denying habeas [or § 2255] relief on the merits is effectively indistinguishable from alleging that the movant is, under the substantive provisions of the statutes, entitled to habeas [or § 2255] relief.” Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 532 (2005) (footnote omitted). Here the Rule 60(b)(6) motion chal- lenged the district court’s merits resolution of Mr. Vazquez’s § 2255 motion. As a result, it was an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion.

AFFIRMED.