
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Juan BERMEA-CEPEDA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 08-40003
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Feb. 18, 2009.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern Distinct of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Juan Bermea-Cepeda, Edgefield, SC, pro se.
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, and STEWART and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Juan Bermea-Cepeda, federal prisoner # 67637-079, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action that he characterized as a motion to reconsider a denial of a Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion. In 1999, a jury found Bermea-Cepeda guilty of possession with the intent to distribute less than 50 kilograms of marijuana, knowingly using and carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime, illegal reentry, being a felon in possession of a firearm, being an illegal alien in possession of a firearm, and attempting to kill a border patrol agent. In 2002, the district court sentenced Bermea-Cepeda, following an appeal and remand, to a total of 206 months of imprisonment.

On appeal to this court, Bermea-Cepeda argues that the district court erred in denying his FedR.CivP. 60(b) motion, filed in October 2007. Bermea-Cepeda asserts that the judgment of conviction was void under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) because he was denied a speedy trial in violation of his constitutional rights. As criminal proceedings in the United States district courts are governed by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Fed.R.CrimP. 1, and not the Rules of Civil Procedure, Bermea-Cepeda’s motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) was an unauthorized action which the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Bermea-Cepeda has thus appealed from the dismissal of a meaningless, unauthorized action. See id. We affirm on the basis that the district court lacked jurisdiction. See id.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     