
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward COFFEY, Defendant-Appellant. Charles Edward Coffey, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    Nos. 01-6347, 01-6796.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2001.
    Decided July 19, 2001.
    
      Charles Edward Coffey, pro se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Charles Edward Coffey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000). In the first order appealed, the district court denied Coffey’s motion to amend his action to add a claim based upon the Supreme Court’s opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of this order substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Coffey, Nos. CR-98-192-V; CA-00-170-1V (W.D.N.C. filed Jan. 30, 2001; entered Feb. 2, 2001). In the second order, Coffey appeals from the district court’s final order denying him relief under § 2255. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. See Coffey v. United States, Nos. CR-98-192-V; CA-00-170 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 19, 2001; entered May 8, 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.
     