
    Robert Daniel KEYS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-40725
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Aug. 15, 2006.
    
      Robert Daniel Keys, Lovelady, TX, pro se.
    Linda Elizabeth Garza, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Robert Daniel Keys, Texas prisoner # 873144, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application which the district court dismissed as time-barred. This court denied Keys’s request for a certificate of appealability (COA) from the dismissal of that application. Keys subsequently filed in the district court a motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Crv. P. 60(b)(1). When the district court denied that motion, Keys filed a motion for rehearing by a three-judge panel, which the district court also denied. Keys now seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s denial of his motion for rehearing by a three-judge panel.

Keys cites to no authority nor has any been found establishing his right to a three-judge panel rehearing of the denial of his Rule 60(b)(1) motion. As such, his motion was unauthorized. Keys thus has appealed from the denial of a meaningless, unauthorized motion. See United States v. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1994). Although the district court denied the motion on the merits, it should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Id. However, this court can and does affirm on the alternative basis. Id. Keys’s request for a COA is denied as unnecessary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Keys’s motions for the appointment of counsel and for an en banc consideration of his COA motion are also denied. See Fed. R.App. P. 35(a); 5th Cir. R. 35.6.

COA DENIED AS UNNECESSARY; AFFIRMED; MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND EN BANC CONSIDERATION DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     