Mario L. Ballard appeals the district court’s orders denying relief without prejudice on his complaint challenging the constitutionality of Virginia’s Sex Offender and Crimes Against Minors Registry Act, Va.Code Ann. §§ 9.1-900 to 920 (Michie Supp. 2003), and denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. We agree with the district court that the Virginia statute does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Smith v. Doe, 538 U.S. 84, 105-06, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003) (addressing Alaska’s sex offender statute); Kitze v. Commonwealth, 23 Va. App. 213, 475 S.E.2d 830, 832-34 (1996) (addressing precursor to current version of Virginia sex offender statute). Similarly, we find the remainder of Ballard’s claims to be without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ballard v. FBI, 2004 WL 190425No. CA-03-354-7 (W.D.Va. Sept. 15, 2003; filed Jan. 20, 2004 & entered Jan. 21, 2004; filed Apr. 5, 2004 & entered Apr. 6, 2004). 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