Adrian Howard Jackson appeals the district court’s order denying his Rule 59(e) motion to reconsider the denial of his Rule 60(b)(4) motion and alternatively to allow his pleadings to serve as a notice of appeal of the Rule 60(b) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Jackson, No. 0:98-cr-01126-JFA (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2007). 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.