PER CURIAM.
Martin Chavez-Velazquez appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for return of personal property pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure Rule 41(e) and denying reconsideration of that order. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Chavez-Velazquez, No. CR-99-325-A (E.D.Va. Sept. 15 and Oct. 12, 2000). We conclude, however, that in arguing ineffective assistance of counsel, Appellant was supporting his Rule 41(e) motion — not attacking the validity of his conviction or sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). Therefore, we modify the district court’s order to reflect that Appellant’s motion is properly characterized as filed solely pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(e), not § 2255. 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.
AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.