Following his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and possession of ammunition by a prohibited person, Christopher Allen Phipps appeals. He contends that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to dismiss the unlawful possession of ammu *231 nition charge, which he asserts resulted from prosecutorial vindictiveness after he asserted his right to a proper grand jury-proceeding. We have reviewed the record and the briefs filed by the parties and find no abuse of discretion by the district court. United States v. Fiel, 35 F.3d 997, 1007 (4th Cir. 1994); see United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996). We therefore affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss for the reasons stated by the district court, and thus affirm Phipps’ conviction and sentence. See United States v. Phipps, No. 3:04-cr-00038-JPB-DJJ-1 (N.D.W.Va. Nov. 5, 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.