«[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 12-16202 Non-Argument Calendar D.C. Docket No. ...»
Neither did Cano have a right to be present for the correction to the judgment. See United States v. Jackson, 923 F.2d 1494, 1497 (11th Cir. 1991) (“[W]here the entire sentencing package has not been set aside, a correction of an illegal sentence does not constitute a resentencing requiring the presence of the defendant, so long as the modification does not make the sentence more onerous.”). We therefore affirm on these grounds.
We dismiss Cano’s remaining five arguments because they amount to second or successive § 2255 motions for which Cano has not sought authorization.5 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).
In his brief Cano (1) claims that the district court erred in failing to hold his notice of appeal in abeyance pending ruling on additional substantive motions, and (2) argues the merits of those motions. These claims constitute challenges to 5 We also note that Cano has already unsuccessfully raised some of these arguments. He cannot therefore reassert them in a subsequent § 2255 motion, because they are successive. Antonelli v.
Warden, U.S.P. Atlanta, 542 F.3d 1348, 1352 (11th Cir. 2008) (affirming dismissal of petition for habeas corpus where claims had been previously adjudicated on the merits); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2244(a).
Cano’s conviction and sentence that should be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Sawyer v. Holder, 326 F.3d 1363, 1365 (11th Cir. 2003). Because Cano has already filed one motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence, he must first file a motion in this Court authorizing the district court to consider claims raised in a second or successive § 2255 motion.6 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h). Therefore, even if the district court was incorrect in failing to hold the notice of appeal in abeyance or in finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motions because of Cano’s notice of appeal, the district court lacked jurisdiction over Cano’s substantive motions because Cano did not follow the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir.
2005) (“Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive petition.”).
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s order amending the judgment and dismiss Cano’s remaining grounds for appeal.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART.
6 The fact that the district court entered an amended judgment to correct clerical errors does not result in a new judgment that is exempt from the rules on second or successive petitions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See, e.g., United States v. Ledesma-Cuesta, 476 F. App’x 412, 412 n.2 (3d Cir. 2012) (noting there is “no precedential opinion that suggests that the correction of a clerical error serves to either restart the limitations period or negate the existence of a prior attempt at collateral relief”); In re Martin, 398 F. App’x 326, 327 (10th Cir. 2010) (amended judgment that merely corrected clerical error was not a “new judgment” under Magwood v. Patterson, __ U.S.
__, 130 S. Ct. 2788 (2010)).