Thomas Finley appeals the district court’s 1 order denying his motion for review of his 216-month prison sentence, imposed in 1998 following his murder-for-hire convictions. See United States v. Finley, 175 F.3d 645, 646-47 (8th Cir. *355 1999). Finley’s motion, which he characterized as an “appeal of an otherwise final sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 8742(a)(1) & (2),” was actually a successive and untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, filed without authorization. See United States v. Patton, 309 F.3d 1093, 1094 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (inmates may not bypass authorization requirement in 28 U.S.C. § 2244 for successive § 2255 motions by purporting to invoke some other procedure); United States v. Auman, 8 F.3d 1268, 1270-71 (8th Cir. 1993) (noting § 3742 concerns basis for appellate review of district court’s sentencing decisions; it does not grant jurisdiction to district court to review final sentence). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.