Case Name: Nelson GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Florida Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-03
Citations: 699 F. App'x 923
Docket Number: No. 16-16339 Non-Argument Calendar
Parties: Nelson GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Florida Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
Nelson GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Florida Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 16-16339 Non-Argument Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
(November 3, 2017)
Nelson Garcia, Pro Se
Douglas J. Glaid, Pam Bondi, Attorney General’s Office, Miami, FL, for Respondents-Appellees
Before MARCUS, WILSON, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Nelson Garcia, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the dismissal of his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred at sentencing by not orally pronouncing him guilty of attempted first-degree murder, and, furthermore, that the state failed to prove, at trial, that he acted with intent to commit an offense of burglary within a dwelling.
A state prisoner who wishes to file a second or successive habeas corpus petition must petition us for an order authorizing the district court to consider such a petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). Absent such an order, the district court is obligated to dismiss a successive petition, as the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain the motion. Hubbard v. Campbell, 379 F.3d 1245, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
Both Garcia's initial § 2254 petition and his current § 2254 petition challenged his June 2000 conviction for first-degree murder, burglary, and attempted first-degree murder. Because he failed to obtain authorization from us to pursue his claims, the district court did not err by dismissing them.
Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.