On August 29, 2000, appellant having pled guilty to a two-count indictment charging him with possession with intent to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possession of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 844, was sentenced by the district court to concurrent prison terms of 292 months. 1 Subsequently, in United States v. Conaway, 326 Fed.Appx. 545 (11th Cir. 2009), we affirmed the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion to reduce his sentences pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c).

Following the issuance of the mandate, appellant, on August 18, 2009, moved the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(6) to amend its order denying him § 3582(c) relief. The court denied the motion on April 7, 2010. Appellant moved the court under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(c) to reconsider its April 7 order denying Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The court denied the Rule 59(c) motion on April 27, 2010, and appellant now appeals that ruling.

A motion filed under § 3582(c)(2) “is not a civil post-conviction action, but rather a continuation of a criminal case.” United States v. Fair, 326 F.3d 1317, 1318 (11th Cir. 2003). Thus, a defendant cannot employ Rule 60(b) to challenge the district court’s denial of § 3582(c) relief. Id. (holding that appellant could not use Rule 60(b)(4) to attack the district court’s order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion). In short, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s motions under Rule 60(b)(6).

AFFIRMED.