OPINION

Darrell Von Jones was convicted after a jury trial of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possession with intent to distribute marijuana. He received an enhanced sentence as an armed career crimi *159 nal under 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On appeal, he raises two nonmeritorious issues. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.

First, we do not find that the district court abused its discretion by allowing a letter into evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(1)(B); Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150, 157-58, 115 S.Ct. 696, 130 L.Ed.2d 574 (1995); United States v. Acker, 52 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 1995). Second, we do not find that the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), affects Jones’ enhanced sentence for being an armed career criminal. United States v. Dorris, 236 F.3d 582, 587-88 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that § 924(e) sentence not affected by Apprendi).

Accordingly, we affirm Jones’ convictions and sentence. 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.

AFFIRMED.