UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JERRY LEE MAYS, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. TRACY McCOLLUM, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. No. 14-5054 (D.C. No. 4:14-CV-00113-TCK-TLW) (N.D. Okla.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *

Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.
Jerry Lee Mays, a state prisoner pro ceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismi ssal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction. We deny a COA and dismiss the matter. Mr. Mays was found guilty of two coun ts of shooting with intent to kill (Counts I and IV), felonious possession of a firearm (Count II), and assault and battery (Count III)—all enha nced because he had two or more prior felony convictions. He was sentenced to 40 year s for Counts I and IV, 30 years for Count II, and 90 days for Count III, w ith the sentences to be serv ed consecutively. He filed

* This order is not binding precedent excep t under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and colla teral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### July 22, 2014
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court- 2 - a direct appeal challenging his convictions and senten ces. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeal (OCCA) affirmed his c onvictions, but it reduced his sentences on Counts I and IV to 30 years. Mr. Mays sought post-c onviction relief in Oklahom a state court, but his petition was denied. His subsequent appeal to the OCCA was unsuccessful. He filed a second application for post-c onviction relief in the state district court, which was also denied, and he pursued a second unsucces sful collateral app eal. Mr. Mays then filed his first § 2254 habeas pe tition in federal court. Th e district court denied the petition, and we denied his request for a COA. Mays v. Dinwiddie , 441 F. App’x 575, 576, 577 (10th Cir. 2011). In 2011, Mr. Mays filed a second § 2254 petition in fede ral district court. The district court dismissed th e petition, and Mr. Mays s ought a COA to appeal the dismissal. We denied his request for a COA. Mays v. Martin , 512 F. App’x 799, 799 (10th Cir. 2013). In March of this year, Mr. Mays f iled a document that the district court construed as a § 2254 petition. The court directed Mr. Mays to file an amended petition to cure certain deficien cies. Mr. Mays did as he was directed. The district court then dismissed the am ended petition for lack of ju risdiction because it was a second or successive petition f iled without prior authorization from this court. Mr. Mays seeks a COA to a ppeal from that decision.- 3 - To obtain a COA, Mr. Mays must show that “jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of re ason would find it debatable wh ether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). A prisoner may not file a s econd or successive § 2254 hab eas petition unless he first obtains an order from the circ uit court authorizing the dist rict court to consider the petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). In the absence of such authorization, a district court lacks jurisdicti on to address the merits of a second or successive § 2254 habeas petition. See In re Cline , 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam). As the district court noted in its di smissal order, Mr. Mays’ amended petition is a successive petition that challenges the constitutionality of his conviction and sentence, but Mr. Mays did not allege that he obtained the necessary authorization to bring a successive § 2254 petition. The cour t therefore correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction to cons ider the § 2254 petition. In his COA application, Mr. Mays fails to explain how the di strict court erred in dismissing his case for lack of jurisdic tion. Reasonable jurists could not debate that the district court was correct to treat Mr. Mays’ ne w petition as an unauthorized second or successive § 22 54 habeas petition and to dismiss it for lack of jurisdiction.- 4 - Accordingly, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk