PER CURIAM.
Scott Mattingly seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his motion filed under 28 U.S.C .A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Mattingly’s “Notice Motion,” and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United, States v. Mattingly, Nos. CR-97-241-A; CA-00-80-AM (E.D. Va. filed Apr. 12, 2001; entered Apr. 13, 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.
DISMISSED.
We recently held in United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139 (4th Cir.2001), that the new rule announced in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. Accordingly, Appellants Apprendi claim is not cognizable.