[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 19

- 13787 Non

- Argument Calendar

________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:11

- cr - 00006

- HLM

- WEJ

- 1

RANDALL SCOTT ANDERSON, Petitioner

- Appellant,

versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent

- Appellee.

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

________________________ (March 27, 2020) Before BRANCH , GRANT, and ANDERSON , Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM:

Case: 19-13787 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 1 of 42 Randall Anderson, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals from the denial of his post

- judgment motion for judicial notice, which challenged the credentials of the prosecutors involved in his conviction. We review de novo whether the district co urt had subject

- matter jurisdiction. Zakrzewski v. McDonough , 490 F.3d 1264, 1267 (11th Cir. 2007 ). And w e review de novo whether a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is successive such that a district court lacks jurisdiction to consider it without prior authorization. Boyd v. United States , 754 F.3d 1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014)

. A federal prisoner who has previously filed a § 2255 motion in federal court must obtain authorization from this Court before filing a “second or successive” collateral attack on the same conviction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h)(1). Without author ization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a successive § 2255 motion and must dismiss the claims presented. Id. § 2244(b)(4); In re Bradford , 830 F.3d 1273, 1276 (11th Cir. 2016). A § 2255 motion is “second or successive” if the defendan t previously filed a § 2255 motion and that motion was denied on the merits. See Farris v. United States , 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003). We look beyond the label of a prisoner’s filing to determine if he is, in substance, seeking relief under § 22 55. See, e.g. , id. (construing a federal prisoner’s Rule 60(b) motion as a successive § 2255 motion). The district court

Case: 19-13787 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 2 of 43 does not err in construing a motion as a successive § 2255 motion where a prisoner moves to vacate his sentence after having previous ly filed a § 2255 motion. Id. Here, Anderson has filed a previous § 2255 motion to vacate his four claims. The district court denied this motion. This Court granted Anderson a Certificate of Appealability and affirmed that denial.
Anderson then file d a motion for judicial notice, arguing that the prosecutors in his case were not properly appointed officers of the United States. The district court denied this motion, concluding that it was an attack on the merits of conviction, and was therefore a su ccessive § 2255 motion. The court held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion unless Anderson obtained permission from this Court to file a successive motion. Subsequently, Anderson filed a sec o nd motion for judicial notice , in which he argued that his indictment was invalid because his prosecutors were not duly appointed. The district court denied this motion as well, construing it as a successive § 2255 motion filed without permission from this Court.
The district court did not err i n construing Anderson’s motion as a successive § 2255 motion because he sought to vacate his conviction and sentence after having previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied with prejudice. See
Farris , 333 F.3d at 1216. Anderson’s motion sought to h ave his conviction and sentence vacated by requesting that the district court dismiss his indictment with

Case: 19-13787 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 3 of 44 prejudice. His motion was therefore properly characterized as brought under § 2255. As a successive § 2255 motion, it could not have been filed with out permission from this Court, which Anderson did not receive. The district court was therefore without subject matter jurisdiction to consider the motion. In addition, Anderson has abandoned any challenge to the district court’s
conclusion that the mot ion below was a successive § 2255 motion because he does not raise such a challenge in his briefing on appeal. AFFIRMED. 1

1 We also deny Anderson’s motion requesting that the government file a response brief

.

Case: 19-13787 Date Filed: 03/27/2020 Page: 4 of 4