Owens

MEMORANDUM *

In this appeal, we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Owens’s successive § 2255 petition. Therefore, we must vacate the district court’s order denying the petition. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255 , 2244(b)(3) (West 2001). The parties are familiar with the facts of the case, and we recount them here only as necessary to explain our decision.

Section 2255 provides in part: “A second or successive motion must be certified as provided in section 2244 by a panel of the appropriate court of appeals to contain” either newly discovered evidence or a new, retroactive rule of constitutional law. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 . In turn, § 2244(b)(3)(A) states: “Before a second or successive application permitted by the section is filed in the district court, the applicant shall move in the appropriate court of appeals for an order authorizing the district court to consider the application.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A).

In 1991, Owens filed a § 2255 petition in the district court for the Central District of California, alleging, inter alia, that his federal sentences were unlawfully imposed because they relied in part on his 1968 Baltimore convictions. The district…