Theodore M. Dowdell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his mo *150 tion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). In addition, Appellant complains that he should be granted an evidentiary hearing, leave to amend his initial § 2255 motion, and production of a state court transcript at government expense. 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. Dowdell, Nos. CR-98-50; CA-00-21-4 (E.D.Va. Aug. 3, 2000). 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.