[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 17-10508

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cv-25040-RNS

ANDRES PAVON, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondents-Appellees.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(April 10, 2018)

Case: 17-10508 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Before TJOFLAT, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Andres, Pavon, a Florida prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction of his third 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for 

writ of habeas corpus. Pavon argues that the district court erred in dismissing his 

third § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction because he was actually innocent, 

erroneous jury instructions were given at his state court trial, and he was wrongly 

charged with robbery with a deadly weapon because his use of a BB gun should 

not have been considered a firearm, as defined by Fla. Stat. § 790.001. 

We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a § 2254 petition as second 

or successive. Stewart v. United States, 646 F.3d 856, 858 (11th Cir. 2011). We 

generally will not consider a habeas claim raised for the first time on appeal. 

Dohrmann v. United States, 442 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2006). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b), a state prisoner who wishes to file a second or 

successive habeas corpus petition must move this Court for an order authorizing 

the district court to consider such a petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). 

Courts must look to the judgment challenged to determine whether a petition is 

second or successive. Insignares v. Sec’y, Florida Dep’t of Corr., 755 F.3d 1273, 

1278 (11th Cir. 2014). 

Case: 17-10508 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 2 of 3 
3

Without authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a 

second or successive habeas petition. Farris v. United States, 333 F.3d 1211, 1216 

(11th Cir. 2003). Once a court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

it “is powerless to continue.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 

410 (11th Cir. 1999). 

We have recognized that “the phrase ‘second or successive’ is not selfdefining and does not refer to all habeas applications filed second or successively 

in time.” Stewart, 646 F.3d at 859. Specifically, there is “a small subset of 

unavailable claims that must not be categorized as successive.” Id. at 863. 

However, that small subset of claims involves previously unavailable “facts,” such 

as the vacatur of a prior state conviction. See id. at 863–65. 

The district court did not err in determining that it lacked jurisdiction to 

review Pavon’s third §2254 petition because he failed to obtain authorization from 

this Court before filing a successive petition challenging the same conviction as his 

second § 2554 petition. Additionally, Pavon has not raised any additional facts or 

claims that would fall into the category of claims that must not be considered 

successive. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.

1

 1 Appellee’s motion to file an out-of-time response brief and appendix is GRANTED.

Case: 17-10508 Date Filed: 04/10/2018 Page: 3 of 3