Robert Harris v. USA

Filing

Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Robert Marvin Harris. Decision: Affirmed. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.

Case: 15-14895

Date Filed: 06/29/2016

Page: 1 of 3

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-14895
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 0:15-cv-62176-WPD; 0:99-cr-06064-WPD-1
ROBERT MARVIN HARRIS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
________________________
(June 29, 2016)
Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:

Case: 15-14895

Date Filed: 06/29/2016

Page: 2 of 3

Robert Harris appeals pro se the dismissal of his second motion to vacate. 28
U.S.C. § 2255. The district court dismissed Harris’s motion for failure to obtain
leave to file a second or successive motion. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)(A), 2255(h).
We affirm.
Harris has waived any challenge that he could have made to the dismissal of
his second motion to vacate. The district court “[d]ismissed [Harris’s motion] as
successive” and instructed him to “petition the Eleventh Circuit for permission to
file a successive motion.” But Harris disregarded his obligation to file “the
appropriate form provided by the clerk of this court” to request leave to file a
successive motion. See 11th Cir. R. 22-3(a); Moton v. Cowart, 631 F.3d 1337,
1340 n.2 (11th Cir. 2011) (requiring pro se litigants “to conform to procedural
rules”). The district court was required to dismiss Harris’s motion sua sponte
because, “[w]ithout authorization, the district court lacks jurisdiction to consider a
second or successive [motion].” United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th
Cir. 2005). Because Harris does not dispute that his motion is barred as successive,
we deem abandoned any challenge that he could have made to the dismissal of his
motion. See Timson v. Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008). Harris argues
in his reply brief for “this Court [to] liberally construe [his] [initial] brief as an
implied petition to file a second or successive . . . motion,” but our precedent holds

2

Case: 15-14895

Date Filed: 06/29/2016

Page: 3 of 3

that “we do not address arguments raised for the first time in a pro se litigant’s
reply brief,” id.
We AFFIRM the dismissal of Harris’s second motion to vacate.

3