PER CURIAM.
Wayne Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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 substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Porter, Nos. CR-85-62; CA-01-577 (W.D.N.C. filed Oct. 24, 2002; entered Oct. 25, 2002). In addition, we find that Porter’s claims do not fall within § 2255’s savings clause. Thus, we decline Porter’s invitation to construe his claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994). See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 334-35 (4th Cir.2000) (providing standard for seeking relief under § 2241 based on the inadequacy of § 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.
DISMISSED.