Patrick Earl Francis appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions. Because Francis’ Rule 60(b) motion was tantamount to a successive § 2255 application, we conclude the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider it absent authorization from this Court. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244(b) (West Supp. 2000); United States v. Rich, *142 141 F.Bd 550, 551 (5th Cir. 1998), cert, denied, 526 U.S. 1011, 119 S.Ct. 1156, 143 L.Ed.2d 221 (1999). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the claims raised solely in that motion. As to claims raised in the original § 2255 motion and supplements submitted prior to the district court’s dismissal of the original motion, we find no reversible error. Therefore, we deny a certificate of appeal-ability and dismiss those claims on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Francis, Nos. CR-94-106; CA-99^20-7 (W.D.Va. Feb. 18, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.