R. Keith Neely seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 33. Neely has also filed a motion for a certificate of appealability. As to Neely’s § 2255 and Rule 33 motions, we have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Neely’s Rule 33 motion and dismiss his appeal of the denial of his § 2255 motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Neely, Nos. CR-92-78-R; CA-99-742 (W.D.Va. Feb. 21, 2002). Because Neely has failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we deny a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.