REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

G.R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge.

The Court VACATES its initial Report and Recommendation in this case and substitutes the following in its place. (Doc. 2.) Donald Ubele has submitted for filing his second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking the same 2006 conviction for firearms offenses. (Doc. 1); see Ubele v. United States, No. CV408-178 (S.D. Ga. May 21, 2010). Since this is a successive motion, Ubele was required to first "move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application." 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A); see 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (cross-referencing § 2244 certification requirement). In its initial Report and Recommendation, the Court noted that he had failed to do so. In fact, he had sought permission from the court of appeals, and its order denying permission to file a second or successive motion was entered just after the Report and Recommendation had issued. See United States v. Ubele, No. CR405-012, doc. 142 (Eleventh Circuit denial of application for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion). Consequently, this case should be DISMISSED.1 Since this case is dead upon arrival, Ubele's motion for appointment of counsel (doc. 4) is also DENIED.

Applying the Certificate of Appealability ("COA") standards set forth in Brown v. United States, 2009 WL 307872 at * 1-2 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 9, 2009) (unpublished), the Court discerns no COA-worthy issues at this stage of the litigation, so no COA should issue. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Alexander v. Johnson, 211 F.3d 895, 898 (5th Cir. 2000) (approving sua sponte denial of COA before movant filed a notice of appeal). And, as there are no non-frivolous issues to raise on appeal, an appeal would not be taken in good faith. Thus, in forma pauperis status on appeal should likewise be DENIED. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3).

SO REPORTED AND RECOMMENDED.