PER CURIAM.
Kenneth James Hannah seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) and a subsequent motion to alter or amend judgment filed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and orders 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. Hannah, Nos. CR-95-7; CA-99-3792-4-22 (D.S.C. Jan. 25, 2001; Apr. 9, 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, raised in his Rule 59(e) motion, is not cognizable.