United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
                                   ___________

                                Nos. 05-1840/4402
                                  ___________

United States of America,               *
                                        *
             Appellee,                  *
                                        * Appelas from the United States
      v.                                * District Court for the
                                        * Western District of Missouri.
Eddie David Cox,                        *
                                        *      [UNPUBLISHED]
             Appellant.                 *
                                   ___________

                             Submitted: September 29, 2006
                                Filed: October 19, 2006
                                 ___________

Before SMITH, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.
                            ___________

PER CURIAM.

      In this consolidated appeal, Eddie David Cox, who is serving a life sentence
imposed in 1990, challenges the district court’s1 order denying his “motion to
resentence nunc pro tunc” (Appeal No. 05-1840), and the court’s orders denying his
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3) motion to reopen and his “Motion to
Disqualify the Organized Crime Strike Force Unit” (Appeal No. 05-4402). Following
careful review, we conclude that the district court properly denied Cox’s motions for
sentencing relief. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b), 2255; cf. United

      1
        The Honorable Gary A. Fenner, United States District Judge for the Western
District of Missouri.
States v. Lambros, 

, 1036 (8th Cir.) (per curiam) (it is well established
that inmates may not bypass authorization requirement of § 2244(b) for filing
successive § 2255 actions by invoking some other procedure), cert. denied, 

(2005); Boyd v. United States, 

, 814 (8th Cir. 2002) (per curiam)
(if Rule 60(b) motion is actually successive § 2255 motion, district court should
dismiss or, in its discretion, transfer to court of appeals).

      Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Cox’s pending motions are
denied.
                     ______________________________




                                         -2-