John Lee Cobbs appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his motion filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a)(1) (2000). The district court properly construed this action as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed the motion because Cobbs did not obtain authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Cobbs, No. CR-95-193 (E.D. Va. June 24, 2002). 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.