                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 97-30436
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________

                             LARRY LOFTON,

                                                 Petitioner-Appellant,

                                versus

                   BURL CAIN, Warden, Louisiana State
               Penitentiary; RICHARD P. IEYOUB, Attorney
                      General, State of Louisiana,

                                                 Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

           Appeal from the United States District Court
               for the Eastern District of Louisiana
                           (96-CV-3635-E)
_________________________________________________________________
                         December 15, 1997
Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Louisiana prisoner Larry Lofton, # 99305, appeals the district

court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28

U.S.C. § 2254.     Of course, we must examine the issue of subject

matter jurisdiction on our own motion if necessary.        Giannakos v.

M/V BRAVO TRADER, 762 F.2d 1295, 1297 (5th Cir. 1985).        Lofton’s

appeal is from the district court’s resolution of the merits of the

     *
          Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R.
47.5.4.
claims he raised in a second, or successive, habeas petition.          But,

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), Pub. L.

No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), requires that a prisoner

seeking to file such a petition first obtain an order from this

court authorizing the district court to consider such a petition.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(3)(A).         Because Lofton did not obtain such

permission   from   this   court,    the   district   court   was   without

jurisdiction to entertain the petition.        See id.   Accordingly, the

judgment is VACATED and the case is REMANDED to the district court

with instructions to dismiss the petition.

                       VACATED and REMANDED, WITH INSTRUCTIONS
