ORDER

J. RANDAL HALL, Chief District Judge.

On Febraury 13, 2017, Defendant Saul Edward Saylors pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery of a commercial business, robbery of a commercial business, and carrying, using, and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence. He was sentenced to a total term of imprisonment of 144 months. He did not appeal his conviction or sentence. On July 17, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was recently denied on June 27, 2019.

On July 30, 2019, Defendant submitted a letter to the Court which has been docketed as a motion for relief from judgment. Defendant asserts that he may be entitled to relief pursuant to a new rule of constitutional law announced in United States v. Davis, ___ U.S. ___, 139 S.Ct. 2319 (Jun. 24, 2019). Specifically, in Davis, the United States Supreme Court found that the "residual clause" of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) is unconstitutionally vague.1

In order to attack the legality of his sentence, which is what Defendant is trying to do, Defendant must petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by filing a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his sentence. As the Court pointed out, however. Defendant has already filed a § 2255 motion. In order for him to bring another § 2255 motion. Defendant must move the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for an order authorizing this Court to consider a second or successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255, 2244(b)(3). This Court does not have jurisdiction to address Defendant's motion for relief under Davis without such authorization. Accordingly, Defendant's motion for relief from judgment (doc. 152) is DENIED.

ORDER ENTERED.