
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Willie Henry HARRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 06-20783
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Nov. 26, 2007.
    James Lee Turner, Assistant, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Willie Henry Harrison, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DENNIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Willie Henry Harrison, federal prisoner # 79293-079, appeals the denial of his “relation back motion,” which challenged his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of crack cocaine. In 2001, Harrison filed a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, which was denied by the district court. Harrison sought review of the denial of his § 2255 motion. A certificate of appealability was denied on appeal in October 2002. Harrison filed his relation back motion in 2006.

We must always consider the basis of our jurisdiction, sua sponte if necessary. See United States v. Key, 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir.2000). In his relation back motion, Harrison argued that the district court erred under Fed.R.CrimP. 11 in taking his plea because it failed to go over his plea agreement with him; the Government filed an untimely information concerning enhancement of his sentence based on pri- or convictions pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 851; his plea agreement was invalid because he was an enemy combatant in the United States’ “war on drugs”; and his counsel provided ineffective assistance. Harrison’s relation back motion was an unauthorized motion that the district court was without jurisdiction to entertain. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Accordingly, we affirm on alternate grounds. See Scott v. Johnson, 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir.2000). We do not consider Harrison’s remaining claims raised for the first time in this appeal. See Key, 205 F.3d at 774.

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       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     