finds that the motion states a valid ground for relief under Rule 60(b), it may entertain the motion. If it instead determines that the filing is an SSHP parading as a Rule 60(b) motion, then § 2244 applies. In the latter case, the district court may not entertain the SSHP without our authorization. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). If the petitioner has not obtained our authorization, the district court must reject his motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Winestock, 340 F.3d at 208-09 (vacating the district court’s denial of the petitioner’s purported Rule 60(b) motion and remanding with the instruction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction); Rodwell, 324 F.3d at 73 (affirming the district court’s dismissal of an SSHP dressed as a Rule 60(b) motion); Dunlap, 301 F.3d at 876-77 (<HOLDING>); United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 554 (5th
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 without extended discussion that the peti tioners rule 60b motion was an sshp 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 holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that the district court erred in failing to recharacterize a rule 60b motion as an sshp and reversing with the instruction to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction