USCA11 Case: 23-11989 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2024 Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 23-11989 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ADRIAN APODACA, Petitioner-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant-Appellee.

____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket Nos 0:23-cv-60863-KAM, 0:16-cr-60323-KAM-1 USCA11 Case: 23-11989 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2024 Page: 2 of 3

2 Opinion of the Court 23-11989 ____________________ Before NEWSOM, GRANT, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: Adrian Apodaca, proceeding pro se, appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate his sentence as an unauthorized second or successive motion. He had previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied on the merits. See Apodaca v. United States, No. 20-cv-60963 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 24, 2020).

He then moved in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) for an order authorizing the district court to consider a second application. We denied that motion, reasoning that he had failed to make a prima facie showing of either ground under 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) justifying second or successive petitions. See Apodaca v. United States, No. 23-10914 (11th Cir. Apr. 18, 2023).

Despite being denied permission to file, Apodaca did so anyway. “[T]o file a second or successive § 2255 motion, the movant must first file an application with the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider it.”

Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003).

“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.” Id. Apodaca did not receive authorization from this Court, so the district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his unauthorized second § 2255 motion.

USCA11 Case: 23-11989 Document: 21-1 Date Filed: 05/31/2024 Page: 3 of 3

23-11989 Opinion of the Court 3 The government moves for summary affirmance. Because its position “is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case,” we grant its motion. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

AFFIRMED.