
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Leon DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 04-15159.
    D.C. Docket No. 94-00529-CR-UUB.
    Non-Argument Calendar
    United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
    July 14, 2005.
    Kathleen M. Salyer, Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Anthony Leon Davis, Coleman, FL, pro se.
    Before TJOFLAT, HULL and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

In United States v. Davis, No. 95-5378, 114 F.3d 1200, 1997 WL 251325 (11th Cir. May 8, 1997) (not published), we affirmed appellant Anthony Leon Davis’s conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine. Thereafter, Davis moved the district court to vacate his conviction and sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied his motion, and we refused to grant a certificate of appealability. On July 29, 2004, Davis moved the court to dismiss the indictment (in the case that led to his conviction and sentence for possession of cocaine). Although Davis’s motion stated that it was being filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742, the district court treated the motion as a motion filed under § 2255 and dismissed it because Davis had not obtained leave of court as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(a) and 2255.

Davis now appeals the court’s ruling. We affirm. The court properly treated the motion as a successive § 2255 petition.

AFFIRMED. 
      
      . The district court considered whether, before ruling on the motion, to advise Davis that it would treat the motion as having been filed pursuant to § 2255. See Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 124 S.Ct. 786, 157 L.Ed.2d 778 (2003). The court concluded that Castro’s notice requirement only applies to a defendant’s first collateral attack on his conviction or sentence pursuant to a motion that is not labeled a § 2255 motion. The instant motion was not Davis’s first collateral attack on his conviction and sentence; hence, Castro notice was not required.
     