Case ID: f-appx_203/html/0531-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael L. MOORE, a/k/a Gadget, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 06-7104.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 17, 2006.
    Decided: Oct. 23, 2006.
    
      Michael L. Moore, Appellant Pro Se. David Benjamin Joyce, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Michael L. Moore appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion for reduction of sentence filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) and subsequent motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Moore’s motion for reduction of sentence for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Moore, No. 1:97-cr-00362-JCC (E.D. Va. June 1, 2006). Moreover, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Moore’s motion for reconsideration, and we affirm that order as well. 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.