Edgar Nelson Pitts appeals the district court’s decision construing his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as a successive § 2255 motion and denying it for failure to receive proper authorization from this court. On appeal, Pitts contends that his motion should have been construed under Rule 60(b). In his motion, Pitts alleged that the district court failed to consider the merits of his claims raised in his original § 2255 motion.

Even assuming Pitts is correct that the district court misconstrued his motion, we find that his Rule 60(b) motion is without merit. The district court dismissed his first § 2255 motion as untimely filed, and we upheld the dismissal on appeal. Pitts’ efforts to revive the merits of his claims in a Rule 60(b) motion are unavailing, and he offers no argument rebutting the conclusion that his § 2255 motion was untimely *102 filed. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.