ORDER

TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.

This case is before the Court on Petitioner Warren Anthony Tillery's Motion Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence. (Civ. Doc. 1).1 Petitioner argues that he is entitled to relief from his sentence under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), which held that the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act is unconstitutionally vague, and Welch v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 1257 (2016), which held that Johnson applies retroactively on collateral review.

Because Petitioner previously moved to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (see Case No. 3:13-cv-51-J-32JRK, Doc. 1), and because the Court denied the first motion to vacate on the merits (Case No. 3:13-cv-51-J-32JRK, Doc. 31), Petitioner was required to apply to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for permission to file a second or successive motion to vacate. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) ("Before a second or successive application permitted by this section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application."). On July 19, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's application. (Crim. Doc. 84).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, "[a] second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals...." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). "Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition." United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005) (citing Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003)). Because the Eleventh Circuit denied Petitioner's application to file a second or successive motion to vacate, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the current § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED:

DONE AND ORDERED.