OPINION
In 1992, Ifedoo Noble Enigwe was convicted on four counts relating to heroin trafficking. He was subsequently sentenced, inter alia, to 235 months imprisonment and 5 years supervised release. After the Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), Enigwe filed a habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. On June 21, 2001, the District Court denied Enigwe’s petition, concluding that Apprendi does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. After our Court decided United States v. Vasquez, 271 F.3d 93 (3d Cir.2001), and United States v. Barbosa, 271 F.3d 438 (3d Cir. 2001), Enigwe filed a motion for reconsideration. On July 30, 2002, the District *635Court denied Enigwe’s motion but granted him a certificate of appealability on the issue whether “his trial and/or sentence violated the rule of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000).”
The issue raised in this appeal is whether Apprendi applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. Two very recent decisions have concluded that Apprendi does not so apply. United States v. Swinton, 333 F.3d 481 (3d Cir.2003); see also United States v. Jenkins, 333 F.3d 151 (3d Cir.2003). Following these opinions (as we must absent en banc reversal), we affirm the order of the District Court denying Enigwe’s motion.