JEAN

v.

UNITED STATES

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon pro se Movant Johnny Jean’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence, ECF No. (“Motion”). The Court has reviewed the Motion,¹ the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is denied. Movant was charged with and convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). See Case No. 14-cr-20769-BB,² CR ECF Nos. , , . He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to a total term of 180 months of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. See CR ECF Nos. , . On January 13, 2016, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in a written but unpublished opinion. See United

determining that he could not make a substantial showing of a denial of a constitutional right. See id. at ECF No. . Movant then filed a second § 2255 motion to vacate, assigned Case No. 18- cv-23140-BB, on June 18, 2018. See Case No. 18-cv-23140, ECF No. . That motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion. See Case No. 18- cv-23140, ECF No. . On October 22, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an Order dismissing Movant’s appeal for want of prosecution as Movant failed to pay the Clerk’s filing fee. See id. at ECF No. . Movant now files the instant Motion, his third § 2255 motion, arguing that his conviction and resulting sentence are unlawful in light of Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019). In

Rehaif, the United States Supreme Court interpreted the “knowingly” requirement of § 922(g), requiring the government to prove “both that the defendant knew he possessed a firearm and that he knew he belonged to the relevant category of persons barred from possessing a firearm.” See United States v. Finley, 805 F. App’x 823, 826 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Rehaif, 139 S.Ct. at 2195- 96). The Eleventh Circuit has held that Rehaif is not a “new rule of constitutional law,” but rather “clarified that knowledge of one’s status as a felon is an element of § 922(g)(1).” See Finley, 805 F. App’x at 826 (quoting In re Palacios, 931 F. 3d 1314, 1315 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Further, the Eleventh Circuit has recently explained that Rehaif is not a permissible ground for obtaining leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See In re Price, No. 20-12133-C, 2020 WL 3790532, *4 (11th Cir. July 7, 2020). Rule 4(b) of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings provides that, “[i]f it plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct the clerk to notify the moving party.” Consistently, the Supreme Court has stated that “[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss

summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face[.]” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (citation omitted). Against this backdrop, courts reviewing a motion under Rule 4 must construe pro se motions liberally. See Enriquez v. Fla. Parole Comm’n, 227 F. App’x 836, 837 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972)). “Before presenting a second or successive motion, the moving party must obtain an order from the appropriate court of appeals authorizing the district court to consider the motion.” Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, Rule 9. As authorization has not been granted, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this latest § 2255 motion, absent permission from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 (2007); Farris v. United States, 333 F. 3d

1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). Movant has not alleged, let alone demonstrated, that he has received authorization from the Court of Appeals to file this successive § 22255 motion. Thus, this unauthorized successive § 2255 motion is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Further, because the court “lack[s] subject matter jurisdiction to consider the [instant] successive petition, [the Court may] not issue a [certificate of appealability]” with respect to any of Movant’s claims. See Williams v. Chatman, 510 F. 3d 1290, 1295 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion, ECF No. , is DENIED; 2. No certificate of appealability shall issue; Case No. 19-cv-62747-BLOOM/Reid

3. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT; and

4. The Clerk shall CLOSE this case.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on July 21, 2020.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to: Counsel of record Johnny Jean 05661-104 Big Sandy-USP United States Penitentiary Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 2068 Inez, KY 41224