James Preston Frye appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for release while his proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) is pending, and his motion for appointment of counsel in that proceeding.

As to Frye’s motion for release, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Frye, No. CR-01-167 (E.D.Va. Apr. 22, 2003).

As to Frye’s motion for appointment of counsel, the district court’s order denying the motion is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R.Civ.P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S.Ct. 1221, 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). Accordingly, we dismiss this part of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before *653 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART.