and ultimately the base offense level in Knowles’s PSI, would fundamentally change the proceedings underlying the sentence he received. He is not seeking to correct a clerical error. Portillo, 363 F.3d at 1164. Because he requested a substantive, not clerical, change to his PSI, Rule 36 does not apply. See id,; Whittington, 918 F.2d at 151. Moreover, the district court could not have construed Knowles’s motion under a different rule to provide relief. Indeed, the court lacked jurisdiction to construe Knowles’s Rule 36 motion as a § 2266 motion because he previously filed a § 2255 motion that was denied with prejudice, and he had not obtained authorization from this Court to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1175 (11th Cir. 2005) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we affirm,
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 holding that a district court lacks jurisdiction to review a second or successive  2255 motion where the movant failed to obtain authorization to file the motion from this court holding that district court has no jurisdiction to decide unauthorized second or successive  2255 claims holding that such claims required prisoner to obtain prefiling authorization to file second or successive habeas petition 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