Chauncey Alexander Hollis appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b). Hoi *67 lis sought reconsideration of the court’s order granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994), and vacating his conviction for using or carrying a firearm in light of Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 116 S.Ct. 501, 133 L.Ed.2d 472 (1995), * on the grounds that the court should have resentenced him on his conspiracy conviction and that counsel provided ineffective assistance at the original sentencing hearing. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion denying Hollis’ Rule 60(b) motion and find no abuse of discretion. CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 401 & n. 2 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding that where Rule 60(b) motion seeks reconsideration of legal issues, motion is not authorized by Rule 60(b), and rejection of motion is not an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of reconsideration on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Hollis, Nos. CR-91-116; CA-98-305-1 (M.D.N.C. Dec. 13, 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.

AFFIRMED.