### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 10694 c/w No. 14

- 10702

In re: JAMIE PERKINS ,
Movant

Motion s for an order authorizing the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas to consider a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion

Cons. w/ No. 14

- 10801

No. 14

- 10801 USDC No. 3:14

- CV

- 2183 USDC No. 3:97

- CR

- 55

- 21

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JAMIE PERKINS,

Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas , Dallas United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 12, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-10694 Document: 00513268614 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/12/2015No. 14

- 10694 c/w No. 14

- 10702 c/w No. 14

- 10801

2 Before DAVIS, JONES, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * In this consolidated matter, Jamie Perkins, federal prisoner # 46483

- 177, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to challenge a district court’s
order transferring his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion to this court as an unauthorized second or successive § 2255 motion to v acate, set aside, or correct sentence

. Perkins also seeks authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. In these various motions, Perkins seeks to challenge his guilty plea conviction on, as relevant here, several weapons
- related charges for which the district court
sentenced him to 10 years of imprisonment on a charge involving a shotgun and 20 years of imprisonment on a charge involving a pistol . In connection with his claims, Perkins also seeks appointment of counsel and leave to amend
his motion s for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We have recently held that the transfer of an unauthorized § 2255 motion is not a final order under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) and, therefore, Perkins does not need to obtain a COA to appeal the district court’s transfer of his § 2255 motion

. See United States v. Fulton , 780 F.3d 683, 688 (5th Cir. 2015). Nonetheless, we have also recently r ejected the contention Perkins
makes here that his § 2255 motion is not successive because he filed it after he
was resentenced under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) which occurred after Perkins filed his first § 2255 motion. See United States v. Jones , 796 F.3d 4 83, 486 (5th Cir. 2015)

. We therefore affirm the district court’s transfer of Perkins’s § 2255 motion to this court based on it being a successive motion.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. Case: 14-10694 Document: 00513268614 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/12/2015No. 14

- 10694 c/w No. 14

- 10702 c/w No. 14

- 10801

3 We may authorize the filing of such a successive § 2255 motion only if
Perkins makes a prima facie showing that his proposed claims rely on either (1) “newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole,” would establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found her guilty of th e offense; or (2) “a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable.” 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(C); Reyes

- Requena v. United States , 243 F.3d 893 , 8 97

- 98 (5th Cir. 2001)

. Perkins does not assert that he has newly discovered evidence , and we have rejected his contention that Alleyne v. United States , 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013), is retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See In re Kemper , 735 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 2013). Our holding in Kemper applies equally to Perkins’ s proposed new claim in his motion to amend the motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion , and his proposed amendment is therefore futile

. See 735 F.3d at 212

. Perkins has not made the required showing under § 2244(b)(3)(C) for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion

. IT IS ORDERED that Perkins’s motion for a COA in matter no. 14

- 10801 is DENIED as unnecessary , his motions for autho rization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion in matters no. 14

- 10694 & 14

- 10702 are DENIED under §2255(h) , his motion for leave to amend his motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion is DENIED as futile, his motion for appointment of counsel is DE NIED likewise, and the district court’s transfer of Perkins’s unauthorized successive § 2255 motion in matter no. 14

- 10801 is AFFIRMED

. Case: 14-10694 Document: 00513268614 Page: 3 Date Filed: 11/12/2015