ORDER

JAMES D. WHITTEMORE, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court for consideration of Petitioner's motion to vacate, set aside, or correct an allegedly illegal sentence filed prose pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (cv Dkt. 1). A motion to vacate must be reviewed prior to service on the United States. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Cases. If the "motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief," the motion is properly dismissed without a response from the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b). Upon consideration of the § 2255 motion and the record, the Court concludes that the § 2255 motion must be dismissed because it is an unauthorized successive motion.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was charged by Superseding Indictment with: conspiracy to distribute and to possess with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine (Count One); distribution and possession with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of methamphetamine (Count Two); and being an alien of the United States who had been convicted of at least one aggravated felony offense and was thereafter deported, who was found to be in the United States, not having received the consent of the Attorney General of the United States to reapply for admission (Count Three) (cr Dkt. 30). Petitioner pleaded guilty to Count Three (cr Dkts. 62, 63). After a jury trial, he was found guilty of Counts One and Two (cr Dkt. 70). He was sentenced to life imprisonment as to Counts One and Two (concurrent) and 240 months imprisonment as to Count Three (concurrent with Counts One and Two) (cr Dkts. 76, 77, 84).

Petitioner appealed (cr Dkt. 83), and the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed his convictions and sentences on December 23, 2003 (cr Dkt. 103). Petitioner's request for collateral relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was dismissed as untimely on April 28, 2009 (cr Dkt. 123). Petitioner did not appeal.1

DISCUSSION

Petitioner now returns to this Court seeking to vacate his sentence based upon Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015), in which the Supreme Court held that imposing an increased sentence under the "residual clause" of the Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), violates due process because the clause is unconstitutionally vague. Since Petitioner has previously sought relief under § 2255 that was dismissed as time-barred, the instant motion to vacate is a second or successive § 2255 motion.2 "[A] second or successive [§ 2255] motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals." 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Because Petitioner has not demonstrated that he has obtained permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to file a second or successive§ 2255 motion, this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the instant § 2255 motion. Darby v. Hawk-Sawyer, 405 F.3d 942, 944-45 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Harris, 546 Fed. Appx. 898, 900 (11th Cir. 2013) (unpublished opinion) ("A district court lacks the jurisdiction to hear a second or successive § 2255 motion absent authorization from a court of appeals.") (citations omitted). The § 2255 motion will therefore be dismissed without prejudice to allow Petitioner the opportunity to seek authorization from the Eleventh Circuit to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.3

ACCORDINGLY, it is ORDERED that:

2. The Clerk is directed to send Petitioner the Eleventh Circuit's application form for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b).

CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED

IT IS FURTHERED ORDERED that Petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. A prisoner seeking a motion to vacate has no absolute entitlement to appeal a district court's denial of his motion. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1). Rather, a district court must first issue a certificate of appealability (COA). Id. "A [COA] may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Id. at § 2253(c) (2). To make such a showing, a petitioner `"must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong,"' Tennard v. Dretke, 542 U.S. 274, 282 (2004) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), or that "the issues presented were `adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further."' Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335-36 (2003) (quoting Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 n. 4 (1983)). When a district court dismisses a federal habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue only when a petitioner shows "that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling." Slack, 529 U.S. at 484. Because the instant motion is clearly an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, and because Petitioner has failed to show the denial of a constitutional right, Petitioner cannot make the requisite showing in these circumstances. Finally, because Petitioner is not entitled to a COA, he is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE AND ORDERED.