¶1 Wesley Hodge seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). 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 the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. * See United States v. Hodge, Nos. CR-96-54-BO, CA-99-178M-BO (E.D.N.C. June 14, 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¶3 Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
¶4 We note that the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Hodge's motions to amend his § 2255 motion as such amendments would have been futile. See United States v. Pittman, 209 F.3d 314, 317-18 (4th Cir.2000), and United States v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 151 (4th Cir.2001).