ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE

MARCIA G. COOKE, District Judge.

This is a federal prisoner's collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Movant Marckson Saint Fleur moves to vacate, correct or set aside his sentence. For the reasons that follow, I deny the motion.

I. Background

On January 10, 2011, Saint Fleur pled guilty to two counts in a Superseding Indictment: (1) one count of Hobbs Act robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); and (2) one count of using, carrying, and discharging a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(iii). On March 30, 2011, the district court sentenced Saint Fleur to a total term of 150 months: 30 months on the Hobbs Act count and 120 months consecutive on the § 924(c) count.

On April 13, 2012, Saint Fleur moved to vacate his sentence pursuant to § 2255 on numerous grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied that motion on January 20, 2014.

On May 9, 2016, Saint Fleur moved the Eleventh Circuit pro se for authorization to file a second § 2255 motion in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), is unconstitutionally vague.1 Saint Fleur argued that under Johnson, he is actually innocent of the § 924(c) count because the "residual clause" in § 924(c)(3)(B) — which is worded similarly to the "residual clause" in § 924(e) — is unconstitutionally vague.

On June 9, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit denied Saint Fleur's application. In re Saint Fleur, ___F.3d ___, 2016 WL 3190539 (11th Cir. June 8, 2016).

On June 24, 2016, Saint Fleur, by and through counsel, filed a second application with the Eleventh Circuit again seeking authorization of a successive § 2255 motion. That application remains pending.

II. Discussion

Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 et seq., there are three requirements for second or successive habeas petitions: (1) "any claim that has already been adjudicated in a previous petition must be dismissed;" (2) "any claim that has not already been adjudicated must be dismissed unless it relies on either a new and retroactive rule of constitutional law or new facts showing a high probability of actual innocence;" and (3) "before the district court may accept a successive petition for filing, the court of appeals must determine that it presents a claim not previously raised that is sufficient to meet § 2244(b)(2)'s new-rule or actual-innocence provisions." Gonzales v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 529-30 (2005).

Saint Fleur has not satisfied the third requirement. The Eleventh Circuit denied his first application for authorization to file a successive petition under § 2255, and has not yet ruled on his second application. Unless and until the circuit court authorizes him to file a successive petition, I am foreclosed from reviewing one on its merits.

This case is therefore DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case. All pending motions, if any, are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED.