Case ID: f-appx_218/html/0950-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James Michael TERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-11033.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    Feb. 27, 2007.
    Jeffrey Scott Cashdan, King & Spalding, Atlanta, GA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    
      Yvette Rhodes, Tampa, FL, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before DUBINA and COX, Circuit Judges, and SCHLESINGER, District Judge.
    
      
       Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.
    
   PER CURIAM:

After reviewing the record and reading the parties’ briefs, we affirm the district court’s order denying Terry’s second 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Under § 2244(b)(4), a district court shall dismiss any claim presented in a second or successive application that does not meet the requirements set forth in § 2244(b)(2). See, e.g., In re Morris, 328 F.3d 739, 740-41 (5th Cir.2003) (granting petitioner’s application for leave to file a successive motion, but noting that the district court would dismiss petitioner’s motion without reaching the merits if it determined that the petitioner did not satisfy the requirements in § 2244(b)(2)). The district court properly concluded that none of Terry’s claims satisfied these requirements. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order.

AFFIRMED.