ORDER

PAUL G. ROSENBLATT, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the defendant's Motion to Receive Notification of Right to Appeal Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(J)(1)(B) (Doc. 84), wherein he requests that he be re-sentenced because the Court failed to advise him in detail of his right to appeal his sentence at the time he was sentenced on September 17, 2001.

The Court finds that the motion should be denied for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner is in effect seeking to file a successive motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without first obtaining the permission of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.1 See United States v. Allen, 157 F.3d 661, 664 (9th Cir. 1998) (Court concluded that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion because the movant had failed to request a certification from the appellate court prior to filing a successive § 2255 motion in the district court.)

The Court notes that even if it had jurisdiction over this motion, the Court would deny it as meritless because any failure on the Court's part to advise the defendant of his right to appeal his sentence was harmless error because the defendant, through counsel, in fact filed a notice of appeal regarding his sentence the day after he was sentenced and the Ninth Circuit, after considering the merits of that appeal in No. 01-10645, affirmed the sentence this Court imposed upon him. Therefore,

IT IS ORDERED that the defendant's Motion to Receive Notification of Right to Appeal Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(J)(1)(B) (Doc. 84) is denied.