
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold MURDOCK, a/k/a Putt, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 01-6298.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 27, 2001.
    Decided May 7, 2001.
    Arnold Murdock, pro se. Joyce Kallam McDonald, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    Before LUTTIG and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Arnold Murdock seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his action construed as a 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 the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Murdock, Nos. CR-92-301-S; CA-01-306 (D.Md. Feb. 6, 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, Appellant’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.
     