OPINION

Henry Wesley Chisolm appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). Finding no reversible error, we dismiss the appeal.

In his motion, Chisolm contended his counsel was ineffective in several respects. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion considering this claim and find no reversible error.

Chisolm also contends, for the first time on appeal, that his sentence violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), and that his counsel was ineffective for failing to note the violation. Because Chisolm failed to raise these claims in the district court and does not demonstrate exceptional circumstances, we decline to address them. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993); First Va. Banks, Inc. v. BP Exploration & Oil, Inc., 206 F.3d 404, 407 n. 1 (4th Cir. 2000). *

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Chisolm, No. CA-01-3-0 (D.S.C. Apr. 18, 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.

DISMISSED.