Leonard Andrew Sayles, Jr., appeals his resentencing following remand and the dis *885 trict court’s order denying his motion for a new trial. As to the motion for a new trial, we have reviewed the briefs, the joint appendix, and the district court’s order denying the motion for a new trial and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Sayles, No. CR-99-198 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 7, 2003). Sayles also filed motions seeking to submit a pro se supplemental brief challenging the quantity of drugs attributed to him as relevant conduct. Although we grant Sayles’ motions, * we decline to address this issue because it is beyond the scope of our remand. United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993). We deny Sayles’ request for 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