ORDER AND JUDGMENT **

Appellant Franklin Scott, appearing pro se, appeals from the district court’s order *785 denying his motion to withdraw his plea of guilty. The district court determined it lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Scott’s motion, ostensibly brought pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(e). Our jurisdiction arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm for substantially the same reasons given by the district court.

On June 2, 1997, Mr. Scott pled guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and money laundering. 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(l)(A)(i). Mr. Scott did not appeal his conviction. Approximately three years later, Mr. Scott filed a motion to withdraw his plea under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(e). The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Mr. Scott’s motion because it was filed post-sentence. Mr. Scott could have brought his motion only under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. United States v. Todaro, 982 F.2d 1025, 1028 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Davis, 954 F.2d 182, 184 (4th Cir. 1992). Though such an action would appear to be barred under the one-year limitation period contained in § 2255, we express no opinion on that.

AFFIRMED.