Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Bruner, Nos. CR-94-93-F; CA-95-438-5-F (E.D.N.C. May 23, 1995). Regarding Appellant's claim that the district court erred in proceeding under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings, we find the claim meritless. We note that the district court's order recognizes the discrepancy between the offense of conviction stated in the judgment (possession of an explosive) and the offense Bruner actually pled guilty to which was "attempt to possess." Order at 6-7. To remedy this inconsistency, we suggest that the district court amend the judgment to reflect that Bruner was convicted of "attempt to possess" rather than "possession of an explosive." We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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.