¶1 Todd Feurtado appeals three district court orders, the first denying relief on his *106 motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2000), the second denying his motion for a certificate of appealability, and the third denying his amended motion for a certificate of appealability. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s 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. Feurtado, Nos. CR-95-669; CA-99-350 (D.S.C. Aug. 25, 2000, Dec. 1, 2000 & Jan. 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.
¶2 DISMISSED.
¶3 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, Feurtado’s Apprendi claim is not cognizable.