Kramer

MEMORANDUM *

Daniel Stanley Van Hoosen appeals the district court’s dismissal of his petition for habeas corpus relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We affirm.

The district court determined that the petition was second or successive because Van Hoosen was, for a second time, attempting to overturn his conviction and the first petition had been decided on the merits. We agree that the petition *591 was a second or successive attack on his conviction. Therefore, Van Hoosen was required to obtain an order from this court before he filed that petition. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (b)(3)(A); Felker v. Turpin, 518 U.S. 651, 657 , 116 S.Ct. 2333, 2337 , 135 L.Ed.2d 827 (1996); United States v. Lopez, 534 F.3d 1027, 1033 (9th Cir.), reh’g granted, 301 Fed.Appx. 587 (9th Cir.2008); Cooper v. Calderon, 274 F.3d 1270, 1272-74 (9th Cir.2001) (per curiam). The requirement that he obtain that order is jurisdictional. See Burton v. Stewart, 549 U.S. 147, 153 , 127 S.Ct. 793, 796 , 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007) (per curiam). If Van Hoosen believed that new facts had come to light, that was merely a basis for asking us to issue an order authorizing consideration of an application for relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244…