USCA11 Case: 22-13611 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 22-13611
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
DERRICK MILLER,
Defendant-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 1:16-cr-20836-PCH-2
____________________
USCA11 Case: 22-13611 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 2 of 4
2 Opinion of the Court 22-13611
Before WILSON, ROSENBAUM, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Miller, a pro se federal prisoner, appeals the District
Court for the Southern District of Florida’s order denying1 his
28
U.S.C. § 2255 motion to vacate and denial of his Rule 59(e) motion
for reconsideration. The government has moved for summary af-
firmance.
In April 2021, Miller filed his original § 2255 motion. The
District Court denied that motion on July 5, 2022. Miller appealed
the District Court’s denial and this Court denied a certificate of ap-
pealability. On August 8, 2022, Miller filed the instant motion, ti-
tled “Petition to vacate sentence for violation of petitioner’s due
process and equal protection provision in his Sixth Amendment
right to confront his accuser(s) in light of Hemphill v. New York.”
The District Court denied the petition after construing it as a sec-
ond or successive § 2255 motion to vacate and finding that Miller
had not received permission from this Court to file such a motion.
Miller then filed a Rule 59(e) motion for reconsideration,
which the District Court denied, again finding that it lacked subject
1 While the district court should have dismissed rather than denied the case
for lack of jurisdiction, we may construe a denial as a dismissal where appro-
priate, and have done so when the district court lacked jurisdiction. Cf. Cani
v. United States,
331 F.3d 1210, 1216 (11th Cir. 2003) (construing a dismissal as
a denial because the district court possessed subject-matter jurisdiction and
should have denied the defendant’s motion on the merits).
USCA11 Case: 22-13611 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 3 of 4
22-13611 Opinion of the Court 3
matter jurisdiction to entertain the petition because it was a second
or successive § 2255 motion. Miller timely appealed. The govern-
ment did not file a brief, instead moving for summary affirmance.
Summary disposition is appropriate either where time is of
the essence, such as “situations where important public policy is-
sues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,”
or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a
matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the
outcome of the case, or where, as is more frequently the case, the
appeal is frivolous.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis,
406 F.2d 1158,
1161–62 (5th Cir. 1969). A motion for summary affirmance post-
pones the due date for the filing of any remaining brief until this
Court rules on the motion. 11th Cir. R. 31-1(c).
When reviewing a district court’s denial of a § 2255 motion,
we review questions of law de novo and factual findings for clear
error. Lynn v. United States,
365 F.3d 1225, 1232 (11th Cir. 2004). We
review a district court’s subject matter jurisdiction de novo. United
States v. Perez,
956 F.2d 1098, 1101 (11th Cir. 1992). “Federal courts
are obligated to look beyond the label of a pro se inmate’s motion
to determine if it is cognizable under a different statutory frame-
work.” United States v. Stossel,
348 F.3d 1320, 1322 n.2 (11th Cir.
2003).
Section 2255 allows federal prisoners to obtain post-convic-
tion relief and set aside prior convictions if they were “imposed in
violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
28
U.S.C. § 2255. A federal prisoner may collaterally attack the legality
USCA11 Case: 22-13611 Document: 17-1 Date Filed: 05/08/2023 Page: 4 of 4
4 Opinion of the Court 22-13611
of his sentence by filing a motion under
28 U.S.C. § 2255. See
28
U.S.C. § 2255. “Only a single § 2255 motion is authorized and suc-
cessive attempts at relief are limited.” Boyd v. United States,
754 F.3d
1298, 1301 (11th Cir. 2014). “[T]o file a second or successive § 2255
motion, the movant must first file an application with the appro-
priate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to
consider it.” Farris v. United States,
333 F.3d 1211, 1216 (11th Cir.
2003);
28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). “Without authorization, the dis-
trict court lacks jurisdiction to consider a second or successive pe-
tition.” Farris,
333 F.3d at 1216.
Here, we grant summary affirmance as to the District
Court’s denial of Miller’s motion. The District Court did not err
when it construed Miller’s petition as an unauthorized second or
successive § 2255 motion as Miller raised an additional claim that
was available to him when he filed his initial § 2255 motion. See
28
U.S.C. § 2255. Miller’s motion was titled “Petition to Vacate Sen-
tence,” which indicates that it was a new motion to challenge his
conviction. Because he did not obtain permission from this Court
to file a successive § 2255 motion, the district court lacked jurisdic-
tion to consider his motion. See Farris,
333 F.3d at 1216.
Accordingly, the government’s motion for summary affir-
mance is clearly correct as a matter of law. Groendyke Transp., Inc.,
406 F.2d at 1162.
AFFIRMED.
