PER CURIAM.
George Edward Williams, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), and denying his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to deny § 2255 relief, and the court’s order denying the Rule 59(e) motion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, Nos. CR-92-228; CA-97-631-2 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 1999 & Sept. 22, 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.
Williams’ claim that his sentence is not proper in light of the rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is without merit. We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. We also decline to address the new ineffective assistance of counsel claim raised by Williams for the first time on appeal. Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances of plain error or fundamental miscarriage of justice).