[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 16

- 11693 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 1:92

- cv - 00383

- SCJ ; 1:92

- cv - 00388

- SCJ

JACKIE RAY ROLLER, Plaintiff

- Appellant,

versus STANLEY TUGGLE, BILL LEMACKS, D 6, Defendants

- Appellees.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________ (November 22, 2016) Before HULL , WILSON and WILLIAM PRYOR , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 16-11693 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Page: 1 of 32 Jackie Ray Roller, a Georgia state prisoner, appeals the denial of his ten motions to vacate . Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6). Roller moved to vacate judgments that dismissed ten civil actions he had filed between 1992 and 1997, a t least four of which were dismissed as frivolous under the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). We affirm. We review the denial of a motion for relief from a judgment for abuse of discretion. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Crum & Forster Specialty Ins. Co. , 828 F.3d 1331, 1333 (11th Cir. 2016)

. That standard requires that we affirm unless the district court applied an incorrect legal standard or made findings of fact that were clearly erroneous. Id. Roller’s “ burden on appeal is heavy .” See Cano v. Baker , 435 F.3d 1337, 1342 (11th Cir. 2006) . He must establish that his “ circumstances are sufficiently extraordinary to warrant relief ”; that is, he must have “ a justification so compelling that the [dis trict] court was required to vacate its [judgment].” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Roller challenges the denial of his motions on two grounds, both of which are foreclosed by Rivera v. Allin , 144 F.3d 719 (11th Cir. 1998) , abrogated on other grounds , Jones v. Bock , 549 U.S. 199 (2007) . Roller argues that the Act cannot be applied retroactively to him, but Rivera holds that “ federal courts may properly count as strikes lawsuits or appeals dismissed as frivolous, malicious or failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted prior to April 26, 1996 ,”

Case: 16-11693 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Page: 2 of 33 id. at 730. Roller also argues that section 1915(g) interferes with his right of access to the courts, in violation of the First Amendment, and denies him due process and

e qual protection, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. As we concluded in Rivera , section 1915(g) does not impede a prisoner’s access to the courts by requiring him to prepay filing fees, id. at 723

– 24; does not violate due process by revoki ng a prisoner’s “privilege to proceed in forma pauperis” after he received “a full and fair opportunity to participate in at least three prior cases ,” id. at 727; and does not deny equal protection by requiring “frequent filer prisoner indigents” to pay th eir filing fees to “ further the goal of curtailing abusive prison litigation ,” id. at 727

– 28. The district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Roller’s motions. The district court also lacked authority to determin e which of Roller’s prior judgments count as strikes under the Act. “ Article III of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction o f the federal courts to actual ‘ cases ’ or ‘ controversies ,’ ” and there is no “justiciable controversy” if a party is “asking for an advisory opinion.” Miller v.
F CC , 66 F.3d 1140, 1145 (11th Cir. 1995)

. The determination that Roller seeks can be made “[i]f and when” he is “ appealing from a third

- strike trial

- court dismissal .” See Coleman v. Tollefson , 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1765 (2015)

. We AFFIRM the denial of Roller’s motions to vacate. Case: 16-11693 Date Filed: 11/22/2016 Page: 3 of 3