United States v. Powell , 69 F. App'x 368 ( 2003 )

MEMORANDUM ^**

Michael David Powell appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) for “compassionate release” and its dismissal of his fifth motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which challenges his 15-year sentence under the Armed Career Criminal Act for being a felon in possession of a firearm. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253(a). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Powell’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion, because Powell did not provide a motion from the Director of the Bureau of Prisons. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A) (stating that a court may modify a sentence “upon motion of the Director of the Bureau of Prisons”); United States v. Mullanix, 99 F.3d 323, 324 (9th Cir.1996) (stating that a district court may modify a sentence only when authorized by a statute or rule).

The district court also properly dismissed Powell’s latest § 2255 motion, because it is successive and unauthorized. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (stating that successive § 2255 motions may not be filed in district court without prior authorization from the court of appeals). Were we to construe Powell’s appeal as a request for authorization, we would deny the request, because the claims he seeks to raise do not meet the standards set forth in § 2255. See United States v. Lorentsen, 106 F.3d 278, 279 (9th Cir.1997) (order) (stating that successive § 2255 motions must rely on new evidence establishing that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty or on a new rule of constitutional law).

Thus, the district court properly denied Powell’s requests for relief.¹

AFFIRMED.

** This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1 . All pending motions are denied.