Opinion ID: 171417
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: newly discovered evidence ; or

Text: (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. Section 2244(b)(3)(A), in turn, mandates: “Before a second or successive application . . . is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the 2 The § 2255 remedy is not inadequate or ineffective simply because the prisoner is procedurally barred from filing a § 2255 motion. Caravalho v. Pugh, 177 F.3d 1177, 1179 (10th Cir. 1999). 3 A court is not required to give notice before recharacterizing a pleading as a § 2255 motion when it is not the first § 2255 motion. See United States v. Torres, 282 F.3d 1241, 1245-46 (10th Cir. 2002). -4- appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” DeWilliams did not obtain the required authorization. Without the authorization, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion. See United States v. Nelson, 465 F.3d 1145, 1148 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[A] second or successive § 2255 motion cannot be filed in district court without approval by a panel of this court. As a result, if the prisoner’s pleading must be treated as a second or successive § 2255 motion, the district court does not even have jurisdiction to deny the relief sought in the pleading.”) (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has instructed: “When the lower federal court lacks jurisdiction, we have jurisdiction on appeal, not of the merits but merely for the purpose of correcting the error of the lower court in entertaining the suit.” Bender, 475 U.S. at 541 (quoting United States v. Corrick, 298 U.S. 435, 440 (1936)). That is the extent of our jurisdiction here. We DENY DeWilliams’ request for current and past transcripts and his renewed motion to obtain a copy of his 1988 sentencing transcript, which we construe as motions to supplement the record.