PER CURIAM.
Tarus D. Owens appeals the district court’s order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000) motion and dismissing the motion as successive. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Owens, Nos. CR-97-150; CA-00-135 (E.D.Va. June 27, 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.
DISMISSED.