
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Todd Errol VASSELL, a/k/a Eric Scott, a/k/a Corey Ryan, a/k/a Andre Nunes, a/k/a Michael Derwitt, a/k/a Chris Daley, a/k/a Tadd Vassell, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 00-7815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Sept. 28, 2001.
    Decided Nov. 26, 2001.
    Marcia Gail Shein, Law Office of Marcia G. Shein, P.C., Decatur Georgia; Charles Haden, Hampton, Va, for appellant. Laura P. Tayman, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Va, for appellee.
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Todd Vassell appeals a district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration of a previous order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001) motion.

The standard of review of the denial of Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions on appeal is abuse of discretion. United States v. Holland, 214 F.3d 523, 527 (4th Cir.2000). In order to be entitled to relief under Rule 60(b), it is incumbent upon the movant to show: (1) mistake; (2) newly discovered evidence; (3) fraud; (4) that the judgment is void; (5) that the judgment has been discharged; or (6) any other reason justifying relief. When the motion raises no new arguments, but merely requests the district court to reconsider a legal issue or to change its mind, relief is not authorized. United States v. Williams, 674 F.2d 310, 313 (4th Cir.1982).

Because we are limited to review of only the denial of the motion for reconsideration, and Vassell does nothing more than disagree with the court’s resolution of his § 2255 motion, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.  