
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Max Orvel PLUMLEE; Patrick Kit Plumlee, Defendants-Appellants.
    No. 01-6432.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 26, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 3, 2001.
    
      Max Orvel Plumlee, Patrick Kit Plum-lee, pro se. Helen F. Fahey, Alexandria, VA, for appellee.
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Max and Patrick Plumlee appeal the district court’s order denying their joint motion challenging the validity of their sentences under 28 U.S.CA § 2255 (West Supp.2000), as untimely under § 2255 116. On appeal, the Plumlees contend the court below was obliged to consider their motion because the Supreme Court’s recent holdings in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813, 119 S.Ct. 1707, 143 L.Ed.2d 985 (1999), and Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998), indicate the trial court lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to convict and sentence them. For reasons stated herein, we dismiss their appeal.

As a preliminary matter, this court has held that Apprendi is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review. See United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir.2001). Additionally, the Supreme Court’s decision in Bousley preceded the filing of the Plumlees’ motion by over a year. See 523 U.S. 614, 118 S.Ct. 1604, 140 L.Ed.2d 828 (1998). Consequently, their motion is untimely as to each of these claims. See § 2255 116. Finally, to the extent the Plumlees’ raise a timely challenge to their conviction under Richardson, we note that the jury returned guilty verdicts as to Counts Seven through Ten and Thirteen through Fifteen, all of which are listed as predicate offenses to the continuing criminal enterprise of which they were convicted. Consequently, the district court’s alleged failure to give an instruction meeting the requirements of Richardson constitutes harmless error. See United States v. Brown, 202 F.3d 691, 700 (4th Cir.2000) (citing United States v. Escobar-de Jesus, 187 F.3d 148, 162 (1st Cir.1999)). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss their 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.  