Salvador Vargas Navarro, federal prisoner no. 05101-010, is serving a 360-month sentence for 1997 drug-trafficking convictions. He appeals the district court’s denial of his motion styled “Motion to Correct or Amend the Presentence Report, and Resentence De Novo.” He argues that he is entitled to relief because the sentencing court failed to resolve an issue raised in the presentence report and because he was not present during sentencing.

The rules that Navarro cites, Fed. R.Crim. P. 32 and 43, provide no procedural or jurisdictional vehicle for his collateral attack on his sentence. He has thus “appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 141 (5th Cir. 1994). The ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED on grounds that the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such a motion. See id.