PER CURIAM.
Savino Braxton appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to amend his motion for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no abuse of discretion. Moreover, Braxton’s motion to amend is tantamount to a successive § 2255 motion, for which Braxton must obtain authorization from this court to file. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-53 (5th Cir.1998) (holding that motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), properly construed as successive § 2255 motion), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1011, 119 S.Ct. 1156, 143 L.Ed.2d 221 (1999). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Braxton, No. CR-90-135-K (D.Md. Oct. 30, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.