Anthony Emanuel Williams appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s prior order ruling on his request for return of seized property under Fed. R. Crim P. 41(e). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no *60 reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Williams, No. CR-98-148 (E.D.Va. Apr. 4, 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.

AFFIRMED.