[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 16-15787

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket Nos. 1:16-cv-22554-KMM,

1:95-cr-00551-KMM-1

DAVID ARIAS, 

 Petitioner-Appellant,

 versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Respondent-Appellee.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(February 1, 2018)

Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES, and JILL PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 16-15787 Date Filed: 02/01/2018 Page: 1 of 6 
2

David Arias appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence. After careful review, we 

affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

In January 1996, a jury found Arias guilty of two counts of Hobbs Act 

robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); one count of conspiracy to commit 

Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a); one count of possession of 

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g); and two counts 

of using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence—

specifically, Hobbs Act robbery—in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district 

court sentenced Arias to a total of 408 months’ imprisonment. Arias appealed, and 

we affirmed. 

In September 2000, Arias filed his first motion to vacate, set aside, or correct 

his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied that motion with 

prejudice. 

In February 2001, Arias filed a motion to modify his sentence under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) and Amendment 599 to the Sentencing Guidelines. The 

district court summarily denied that motion. On appeal from that denial, the 

Government conceded that it had misadvised the district court that 

Amendment 599 did not apply to Arias, when in fact, it did. In light of that 

Case: 16-15787 Date Filed: 02/01/2018 Page: 2 of 6 
3

concession, we could not determine whether the district court had considered the 

effect of Amendment 599 on Arias’s sentencing range when it summarily denied 

his motion. Accordingly, we vacated the sentences imposed for Arias’s § 1951(a) 

and § 922(g) convictions and remanded the case to the district court.

1

 

On remand, the district court recalculated Arias’s guideline range and held a 

hearing, after which it imposed the same sentences that it had previously imposed,

based on its assessment of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors. The district court did 

not, however, enter a new judgment. Arias appealed. We affirmed the district 

court’s sentencing decision, but remanded with instructions for the district court to 

enter a formal judgment re-imposing its original sentences as to Arias’s § 1951(a) 

and § 922(g) convictions. The district court entered an amended judgment on 

April 11, 2003. 

In June 2004, Arias filed another § 2255 motion. The district court 

dismissed that motion as impermissibly successive under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). 

Arias did not appeal that decision. 

In June 2016, Arias filed in this Court two applications for leave to file a 

second or successive § 2255 motion in the district court. In both, Arias alleged that 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ___, 135 S. Ct. 

2551 (2015), rendered his § 924(c) convictions unconstitutional. We denied the 

 1 We affirmed the district court’s denial of Arias’s § 3582(c)(2) motion with respect to the 

sentences imposed for his § 924(c) convictions. 

Case: 16-15787 Date Filed: 02/01/2018 Page: 3 of 6 
4

applications on the ground that Arias’s proposed Johnson claim was foreclosed by 

our decision in In re Saint Fleur, 824 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 2016), where we held 

that Hobbs Act robbery qualifies as a crime of violence under § 924(c)’s use-offorce clause. 

While the above applications were pending before this Court, Arias filed the 

present § 2255 motion in the district court. The district court dismissed the motion 

as impermissibly successive. This is Arias’s appeal from that dismissal. 

II. DISCUSSION

The district court dismissed Arias’s § 2255 motion as impermissibly 

successive. Ordinarily, we review a district court’s dismissal of a § 2255 motion 

as impermissibly successive de novo. McIver v. United States, 307 F.3d 1327, 

1329 (11th Cir. 2002). However, Arias does not challenge the district court’s 

conclusion that his § 2255 motion was impermissibly successive. 

Because Arias does not argue that the district court erred in its determination 

that the present § 2255 motion is impermissibly successive,2 he has abandoned any 

challenge to the one ground on which the district court dismissed that motion.3

 See

 2 Indeed, Arias’s arguments on appeal assume that the district court correctly determined that the 

present § 2255 motion was successive, such that Arias was required to obtain this Court’s 

permission to file it. 

3

 Instead of challenging the district court’s reason for dismissing the present motion, Arias, 

through counsel, argues that we should have granted his June 2016 applications for permission to 

file a second or successive § 2255 motion. He contends that (1) In re Saint Fleur is not 

precedential; (2) In re Saint Fleur was wrongly decided; and (3) Johnson invalidated the 

Case: 16-15787 Date Filed: 02/01/2018 Page: 4 of 6 
5

Sapuppo v. Allstate Floridian Ins. Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680–83 (11th Cir. 2014)

(determining that the appellants had abandoned any challenge to the district court’s 

alternative bases for ruling against them by failing to brief those issues on appeal, 

and affirming the district court’s judgment without addressing those issues that the 

appellants did raise); see also Hamilton v. Southland Christian Sch., Inc., 680 F.3d 

1316, 1318–19 (11th Cir. 2012) (“A passing reference to an issue in a brief is not 

enough, and the failure to make arguments and cite authorities in support of an 

issue waives it.”); Denney v. City of Albany, 247 F.3d 1172, 1182 (11th Cir. 2001)

(deeming an issue abandoned where the appellants made a single reference to the 

issue in their brief and did not discuss the district court’s analysis of that issue). 

Therefore, the district court’s judgment is due to be affirmed.4

 

risk-of-force clause in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3)(B). The only relief he requests is for us to grant 

him “leave for his successive application” and to “remand this case for consideration on the 

merits by the district court.” To the extent that Arias asks us to reconsider our denial of his June 

2016 applications, such request is procedurally improper, as it is the district court’s dismissal 

order, and not our previous order denying the June 2016 applications, that is before us in this 

appeal. Moreover, § 2244(b) prohibits us from entertaining a motion for reconsideration of an 

order denying an application for leave to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See 

28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(E); 11th Cir. R. 22-3(b); In re Bradford, 830 F.3d 1273, 1276 (11th Cir. 

2016) (noting that we have repeatedly read § 2255(h) to incorporate the § 2244(b)(3)(E) bar on 

petitions for rehearing).

4

 To the extent that Arias’s brief might plausibly be construed as yet another application for 

permission to file a second or successive § 2255 motion, we would be required to dismiss such 

application because Arias previously raised the same Johnson claim in his June 2016 

applications. See In re Bradford, 830 F.3d at 1277–79; see also In re Baptiste, 828 F.3d 1337, 

1340 (11th Cir. 2016) (explaining that a prisoner cannot avoid § 2244(b)(3)(E)’s prohibition of 

petitions for rehearing by filing “what amounts to a motion for reconsideration under the guise of 

a separate and purportedly ‘new’ application when the new application is the same as the old 

one”).

Case: 16-15787 Date Filed: 02/01/2018 Page: 5 of 6 
6

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district 

court.5

 5

 Because Arias abandoned any challenge to the district court’s determination that his § 2255 

motion was impermissibly successive, this Court need not determine whether the motion was, in 

fact, impermissibly successive in light of the April 11, 2003, amended judgment.

Case: 16-15787 Date Filed: 02/01/2018 Page: 6 of 6