PER CURIAM.
Reginald Davis appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motion challenging the sufficiency of his indictment under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Davis, No. CR-93-25 (W.D.Va. Feb. 23, 2001). 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.
We note that defendants may not bring Rule 12(b)(2) notices once their convictions have become final, as at that point their proceedings are no longer pending. See United States v. Wolff, 241 F.3d 1055, 1056-57 (8th Cir.2001); Stamper v. Basketville, 724 F.2d 1106 (4th Cir.1984).