Julius L. Jackson, federal prisoner # 05408-028, appeals from the district court’s denial of a motion he filed for co-ram nobis or audita querela relief. He also moves for appointment of counsel; that motion is DENIED.

In his district court motion, Jackson attacked the validity of his conviction and sentence. Jackson’s motion could have arisen only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to so construe Jackson’s motion because he previously had filed a § 2255 motion that was disposed of on the merits and did not obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley, 187 F.3d 680, 681-82 (5th Cir. 1999). Jackson’s appeal is “from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion.” United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994).

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.