Alfred Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion following the denial of his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and agree with the court that Bell’s arguments under Apprendi v. *633 New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), are foreclosed by United v. Sanders, 247 F.3d 139, 147 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 122 S.Ct. 573, 151 L.Ed.2d 445 (2001). Bell further contends that the district court erred in construing his 60(b) motion as a successive petition. We need not address this contention, however, as the district court’s reasoning was alternative to its application of Sanders, which independently forecloses this appeal. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.