22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T458,MEMORANDUM California state prisoner Allen Lynn Jef-fries appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm. The district court properly dismissed Jeffries’ petition as successive because it was his third petition challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 finding that Jeffries was not suitable for parole, and Jeffries had not obtained an order from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam). We affirm the district court. We also construe Jeffries’ appeal as a motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider his successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). So construed, we deny the motion because Jef-fries fails to make “a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of’ § 2244(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(C). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T48a,

MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Allen Lynn Jef-fries appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Jeffries’ petition as successive because it was his third petition challenging the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 finding that Jeffries was not suitable for parole, and Jeffries had not obtained an order from this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). See Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam). We affirm the district court.

We also construe Jeffries’ appeal as a motion for an order authorizing the district court to consider his successive petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A). So construed, we deny the motion because Jef-fries fails to make “a prima facie showing that the application satisfies the requirements of’ § 2244(b)(2). See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(C).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.