SUMMARY ORDER
William Jones appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b), challenging the court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. He was convicted in 1993 on a federal drug conspiracy charge and is currently imprisoned. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts of the case, the procedural posture, and the issues raised on appeal.
“We review district court rulings on Rule 60(b) motions for abuse of discretion.” Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 729 (2d Cir.1998).
“[Rjelief under Rule 60(b) is available with respect to a previous habeas proceeding only when the Rule 60(b) motion attacks the integrity of the habeas proceeding and not the underlying criminal conviction.” Harris v. United States, 367 F.3d 74, 77 (2d Cir.2004). We agree with the district court that Jones’s claims plainly challenged his underlying conviction as opposed to his prior habeas proceeding. We note only that despite Jones’s claims of prosecutorial misconduct before and during his trial, he does not suggest that the government knowingly misled the district court considering his habeas petition.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is AFFIRMED.