ED KINKEADE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner, a federal prisoner, has filed a pro se motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. For the reasons that follow, it is ordered that this successive Section 2255 motion be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
I.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, Petitioner pleaded guilty to four counts of armed bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d); two counts of bank robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(a); and two counts of using, carrying and brandishing a firearm during or in relation to a crime of violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). Petitioner was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment on the six robbery counts, to run concurrently with each other; seven years' imprisonment on one firearm count, to run consecutive to the robbery counts; and 25 years' imprisonment on the second firearm count, to run consecutive to the first firearm count. See United States v. Redmond, 3:03-CR-377-K-1 (N.D. Tex. 2005). Petitioner appealed, and the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal as frivolous in light of his counsel's Anders brief. See United States v. Redmond, No. 05-10645 (5th Cir. Aug. 21, 2007), cert. denied (Feb. 19, 2008). Petitioner has also unsuccessfully sought previous relief pursuant to Section 2255. See Redmond v. United States, 3:08-CV-1129-K (N.D. Tex.), C.O.A. denied, No. 09-10062 (5th Cir. 2009), cert. denied (Mar. 22, 2010).
By this action, Petitioner again collaterally attacks his conviction, this time relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Alleyne v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 133 S. Ct. 2151 (2013). [Doc. 2 at 3-4].
II.
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 limits the circumstances under which a petitioner may file a second or successive application for federal habeas relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b). In general, to raise a new claim, the petitioner must show that the successive motion is based on: (l) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have found the movant guilty of the offense; or (2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, that was previously unavailable. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); see In re Elwood, 408 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). Before a petitioner may file a successive application in the district court, however, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit must determine whether the applicant makes the requisite prima facie showing. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3)(A)-(B). As such, Section 2244(b)(3)(A) bars a district court's consideration of a successive habeas application unless the United States Court of Appeals first grants the petitioner permission to file such an application. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
Here, Petitioner asserts that this Court has jurisdiction over his successive petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)(3) because Alleyne "is a 'watershed' rule without which the likelihood of an accurate conviction is seriously diminished and which alters the understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding." [Doc. 2 at 3]. The Court is without jurisdiction to consider this argument, however, because the Fifth Circuit has not issued an order authorizing the Court to consider this successive Section 2255 motion. See, e.g., In re Sepulvado, 707 F.3d 550, 556 (5th Cir. 2013) ("Because the petition is successive, the district court did not have jurisdiction to consider it in light of the fact that [petitioner] did not obtain our prior authorization pursuant to § 2244(b)(3)(A).").
Petitioner must obtain authorization from the Fifth Circuit before he can file a successive application challenging his conviction. Therefore, this Section 2255 motion should be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See Henderson v. Haro, 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002); In re Epps, 127 F.3d 364, 365 (5th Cir. 1997).
The Court also notes, however, that the Fifth Circuit has held that Alleyne is not retroactively applicable to successive Section 2255 motions. See In re Kemper, 735 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Ennis, 559 F. App'x 337, 339 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2014) (per curiam) ("Alleyne does not allow a prisoner to bring a successive motion under § 2255(h)(2).").
III.
The successive Section 2255 motion is TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2255(h), 2244(b)(3).
SO ORDERED.
Signed October 1, 2014.
/s/_________
ED KINKEADE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE