[DO NOT PUBLISH]


                IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                          ________________________                    FILED
                                                             U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                               ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                                 No. 10-14326
                                                                  MARCH 29, 2011
                             Non-Argument Calendar
                                                                    JOHN LEY
                           ________________________                  CLERK

                       D.C. Docket No. 1:92-cr-00619-UU-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                                 Plaintiff-Appellee,

                                       versus

MARK A. MAYNE,

                                                              Defendant-Appellant.

                           ________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Southern District of Florida
                         _________________________
                                (March 29, 2011)

Before HULL, WILSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

      Mark A. Mayne, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his petition

for a writ of audita querela, filed pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
After review, we affirm.1

       Mayne’s petition collaterally attacks his sentence in light of United States v.

Booker, 

, 

(2005). Because the relief Mayne

seeks—the vacatur of his original sentence on constitutional grounds—is

cognizable under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, the district court correctly denied his petition

for a writ of audita querela. See United States v. Holt, 

, 1173-75

(11th Cir. 2005).

       Additionally, Mayne previously filed a § 2255 motion, which was denied,

and Mayne did not obtain authorization from this Court to file a second § 2255

motion. Thus, the district court lacked jurisdiction to review Mayne’s pro se

petition as a second or successive § 2255 motion. See 

Further, we

would not have authorized a second or successive § 2255 motion because the

constitutional rule announced in Booker does not apply retroactively on collateral

review. See In re Anderson, 

, 1339-40 (11th Cir. 2005).

       AFFIRMED.




       1
         “We review de novo the question of whether a prisoner may challenge his sentence by
filing a motion for a writ of audita querela.” United States v. Holt, 

, 1174 (11th
Cir. 2005).

                                                2