[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 10093 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No s . 1:18

- cv - 22697

- CMA ; 1:95

- cr - 00481

- CMA

- 8

LUIS H. CANO, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

________________________ (December 12, 2019) Befo re MARTIN , ROSENBAUM , and FAY , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-10093 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 1 of 52 Luis Cano , a federal prisoner proceeding pro se , appeals the district court’s dismissal of his motion to set aside his judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3)

. After careful consideration, we affirm

. Cano’s Rule 60( d )(3) motion was in fact a second or successive habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and he did not receive permission from this Court before filing it. Therefore, the district court correctly determine d it was without jurisdiction over Cano’s motion.
I. In 1997, a federal grand jury indicted Cano with 76 counts of drug trafficking and money laundering offenses. A fter a jury trial, Cano was convicted of 69 counts and sentenced to 1 3 concurrent life sentences, and 56 concurrent sentences of 240

- months imprisonment. 1 I n 2004, Cano filed a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the Southern District of Florida, which was denied. In 2017, he sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of Indiana, which was dismissed

. In July 2018, Cano filed a motion to vacate his judgment under Rule 60(d)( 3) in the Southern District of Florida , alleging (1) the federal agents and government attorneys involved with his trial perpetrated a fraud on the court; (2) the trial judge ratified this fraud, improperly instructed the jury, and impermissibly

1 On direct appeal, this Court vacated one of the counts carrying a life sentence, thus reducing Cano’s 13 concurrent life sentences to 12

. See United States v. Cano , 289 F.3d 1354, 1366

– 67 & n.28 (11th Cir. 2002).

Case: 19-10093 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 2 of 53 imposed a forfeiture judgment; (3) district judges who denied him post

- conviction relief perpetuated the fraud; and (4) a warden misrepresented the record during his habeas proceedings in the Southern District of Indiana. The district court found that Cano’s Rule 60( d )(3) motion attacked his conviction and sentence on the merits, and thus construed it as a second or successive petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Because Cano previously filed a § 2255 motion, and did not seek leave from this Court to file a second or successive petition, the district court held it was without jurisdiction and dismissed
Cano’s R ule 60(d)(3) motion

. Cano appealed the district court’s dismissal. 2
I I. We review de novo whether a district court had subject matter jurisdiction to consider a Rule 60 motion. Williams v. Chatman , 510 F.3d 1290, 1293 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam). Rule 60(d)(3) allows a court to “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3). A proper Rule 60(d)(3) motion is one that “ attacks , not the substance of the federal court’s resolution of a claim on the merits, but some defect in the integrity of the federal ha beas proceedings .” Gonzalez v. Crosby , 545

2 Cano’s notice of appeal also refer enced a district court order dated November 30, 2018 , denying both a motion to recuse and a motion to alter or amend judgment. Because Cano does not address this order in his briefs, he has abandoned the issue on appeal. Timson v. Sampson , 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam)

.

Case: 19-10093 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 3 of 54 U.S. 524, 532, 125 S. Ct. 2641, 2648 (2005) (emphasis added) . On the other hand, a motion that attacks a “federal court’s previous resolution of a claim on the merits ,” or which “seeks to add a new ground for re lief” does not constitute a proper Rule 60(d)(3) motion, but rather a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. Id. An inmate who has already filed a § 2255 petition must “move this Court for an order authorizing the district court to consider” a second or successive petition. Williams , 510 F.3d at 1295. Absent authorization from this Court, the district court lacks jurisdiction. In re Bradford , 830 F.3d 1273, 1277 (11th Cir. 2016) (per curiam)

. Cano ’s motion is properly construed as a successive petition under § 2255. It primarily attacks the merits of his underlying conviction and sentenc e by alleging fraud by those involved in his trial. And w hile he contends this fraud tainted subsequent post

- trial proceedings, his specific allegations of misconduct occurred prior to his conviction and relate only to the integrity of his trial court proceedings

. 3 Because Cano’s motion alleges defects in his u nderlying conviction

3 In his initial motion, Cano made passing reference to a warden “misrepresenting the factual records of the United States of America ” in his Southern District of Indiana habeas proceedings

. B ecause Cano has not addressed this argument in either of his briefs, he has abandoned it. See Timson , 518 F.3d at 874

. Beyond that, this allegation is precisely the type of “[c]onclusory averment [] of the existence of fraud” that is insufficient to suppo rt a Rule 60(d)(3) motion. Booker v. Dugger , 825 F.2d 281, 28 3

– 8 4 (11th Cir. 1987) (quotation marks omitted).

Case: 19-10093 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 4 of 55 rather than his federal habeas proceedings, t he district c ourt correctly treated it as a successive § 2255 petition

. Cano has already filed a § 2255 petition

. Thus, his failure to petition this Court for an order authorizing a second or successive habeas petition left the district court without jurisdiction to consider his motion

. Bradford , 830 F.3d at
1277. AFFIRMED.

Case: 19-10093 Date Filed: 12/12/2019 Page: 5 of 5