PER CURIAM. Manuel A. Ramirez appeals the district court’s order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(
b) motion to reconsider its order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). We review the denial of a Rule 60(
b) motion for abuse of discretion. NOW v. Operation Rescue, 47 F.3d 667, 669 (4th Cir.1995). Because Ramirez’s motion stated no viable ground for relief under the rule, we find no abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.
We note that we lack jurisdiction to review the underlying order denying Ramirez’s § 2255 motion because Ramirez did not appeal the order within sixty days of its entry, see Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B); Panhorst v. United States, 241 F.3d 367, 370 (4th Cir.2001), and Ramirez's 60(
b) motion did not toll the time for filing an appeal. See Browder v. Director, Illinois Dep't of Corr., 434 U.S. 257, 263 n. 7, 98 S.Ct. 556, 54 L.Ed.2d 521 (1978).