required to obtain this Court’s leave to file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. 28 U.S.C. § 2255 118. He failed to do so, and, thus, pursuant to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub.L. No. 104-32, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996), we conclude that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Burns’s claims. See, e.g., Fugate v. Dep’t of Corrs., 301 F.3d 1287, 1288 (11th Cir.2002) (affirming after holding that a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim of cruel and unusual punishment to seek relief from a death sentence is the functional equivalent of a second or successive habeas petition, and the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the claim because the petitioner had not sought permission from this Court to file it); Wofford v. Scott, 177 F.3d 1236, 1245 (11th Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>). We, therefore, AFFIRM the district court’s
holding habeas review was available to federal prisoner claiming actual innocence who was barred from bringing a successive  2255 motion because the denial of collateral review would raise sufficiently serious constitutional questions under the eighth amendment and the due process clause holding that a prisoner cannot use the savings clause of 28 usc  2241 to escape the restrictions on successive  2255 motions and the failure to raise an available claim earlier holding that a claim under booker does not fit within the savings clause of 28 usc  2255 holding that equitable tolling is available for petitions filed pursuant to 28 usc  2255 recognizing that   2241 is not available under the inadequateorineffectiveremedy escape hatch of  2255 merely because the court of appeals refuses to certify a second or successive motion under the gatekeeping provisions of  2255