CURIAM. Savino Braxton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Moreover, Braxton’s motion to amend is tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Braxton must obtain authorization from this court to file. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1011, 119 S.Ct. 1156,
holding that a certificate of appealability is unnecessary where a district court dismisses a rule 60b motion as an unauthorized successive habeas motion holding that motion filed under fedrcivp 60b properly construed as successive  2255 motion holding without extended discussion that even if the district court should have construed the petitioners motion under 18 usc  3582c2 as a rule 60b motion the court would nonetheless have had to recharacterize the rule 60b motion as an sshp holding premagwood that where a first  2255 motion was granted so movant could file a direct appeal the second  2255 motion was not a successive motion under aedpa holding that motion for reconsideration would be construed not as a rule 60b motion but rather as an unauthorized successive motion under  2255 which the district court may have been without jurisdiction to consider