* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR .

R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50524 Summary Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE RICARDO RUIZ, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. A-92-CR-58-ALL-JN October 2, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: * Jos§ 2255 motion and transferring it to this court to consider whether it meets the requirements for filing a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. Ruiz argues that the district court lacked authority to construe his Rule 60(b)(3) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Ruiz§ 2255 motion. § 2255 motions.§ 2255 motion, he must obtain leave of this court to proceed with a successive motion pursuant to §§ 2255 and 2244(b)(3). See Henderson v. Haro , 282 F.3d 862, 864 (5th Cir. 2002). Ruiz makes no attempt to demonstrate that he satisfies the requirements for a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.

Accordingly, we AFFIRM the district court§ 2255 motion. RuizÂ’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

AFFIRMED; AUTHORIZATION TO FILE A SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE 28 U.S.C. § 2255 MOTION DENIED; MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.

No. 02-50524