Hugo Tenaud appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition, construing the petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it as successive. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Tenaud v. Dodrill, No. CA-02-49-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 29, 2002). 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.