MEMORANDUM **

Mark Lee Stinson appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. We affirm.

The district court correctly determined that Stinson’s original § 2254 petition, which was dismissed because it was untimely, was disposed of on the merits for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). McNabb v. Yates, 576 F.3d 1028, 1029-30 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). As a result, the § 2254 petition that Stinson filed in 2006 was a second or successive petition. See id at 1030. Therefore, Stinson was required to obtain authorization from this Court before filing the petition in the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3). Because Stinson failed to obtain such authorization, the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Cooper v. Calderon, *911274 F.3d 1270, 1274 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

Stinson’s request for counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED.