Per Curiam.
Upon consideration of the motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, the supplement thereto, the response, and the reply, it is
ORDERED that petitioner's motion to modify sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which was transferred to this court as a motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion, be remanded to the district court for consideration in the first instance. Petitioner's claim that his sentence should be reduced in light of Amendment 591 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines is properly brought under § 3582(c)(2), and thus petitioner does not require this court's permission to file the motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See United States v. Yanez, No. 06-2653, 2006 WL 2990269 (7th Cir. Oct. 19, 2006). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for leave to file a successive § 2255 motion be denied to the extent petitioner seeks directly to raise a claim that his sentence was imposed in violation of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000). Such a claim is not cognizable under § 3582(c)(2) and thus constitutes a successive motion under § 2255. See, e.g., United States v. McBride, 283 F.3d 612, 615 (3d Cir. 2002). Petitioner, however, may not pursue a second or successive § 2255 motion based onApprendi, because it is not a new rule of constitutional law "made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See In re Zambrano, 433 F.3d 886, 888 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
The Clerk is directed to transmit a certified copy of this order to the district court.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.