Darius Moss appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion challenging a 1999 order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion; he also appeals the denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) mo *359 tion. Moss’s motion was in reality a successive section 2255 motion. Cf. Gonzalez v. Crosby, — U.S. -, ---, 125 S.Ct. 2641, 2647-48, 162 L.Ed.2d 480 (2005) (Rule 60(b) motion should not be treated as successive habeas motion if it attacks district court’s previous resolution of claim on procedural grounds); United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2255 by purporting to invoke some other procedure). Thus, we deny a certificate of appealability (COA), see United States v. Lambros, 404 F.3d 1034, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (COA is required to appeal denial of any motion that ultimately seeks habeas relief), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 2953, 162 L.Ed.2d 879 (2005), and dismiss this appeal.