REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

G. R. SMITH, Magistrate Judge

John Randall Futch has filed his third 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion attacking his 2002 drug conviction. (Doc. 1); Futch v. United States, No. CV405-053 (Aug. 11, 2005) (granted in part and denied in part); Futch v. United States, No. CV409-146 (Dec. 16, 2011) (denied on the merits). He insists that his conviction must be set aside because of a structural error in violation of the rule set forth in Kaley v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 1090 (2014). (Doc. 2.)

As this is a successive motion, Futch must 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). This Court must dismiss second or successive petitions, without awaiting any response from the government, absent prior approval by the court of appeals. Tompkins v. Sec'y, Dep't of Gorrs., 557 F.3d 1257, 1259 (11th Cir. 2009); Nunez v. United States, 96 F.3d 990, 991 (7th Cir. 1996); see also Hill v. Hopper, 112 F.3d 1088, 1089 (11th Cir. 1997).

Futch has filed his latest § 2255 motion without prior Eleventh Circuit approval, and thus this Court is without jurisdiction to consider it. Because the motion must be DISMISSED as successive, no Certificate of Appealability 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.