Soloman Ham appeals the district court’s order denying his motion construed as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002) motion. 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. Ham, No. CR-90-53 (E.D.Va. Nov. 13, 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.