Case ID: f-appx_146/html/0697-01.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. Nathaniel WATKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 05-7143.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 23, 2005.
    Decided: Oct. 27, 2005.
    Nathaniel Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Vacated and remanded by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Watkins appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000 & Supp.2005), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We review the denial of a motion to modify a sentence for abuse of discretion. United States v. Turner, 59 F.3d 481, 483 (4th Cir.1995). “A court ... abuses its discretion if it makes a mistake of law.” Randall v. Prince George’s County, 302 F.3d 188, 211 (4th Cir.2002); James v. Jacobson, 6 F.3d 233, 239 (4th Cir.1993). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and conclude that the district court mistakenly believed it did not have jurisdiction to consider Watkins’ motion on the merits. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10 (2000) (stating that Amendment 591 applies retroactively). Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s orders and remand for further proceedings. 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.

VACATED AND REMANDED