Case ID: f-appx_88/html/0602-01.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. Robert H. LENDERMAN, Defendant—Appellant.
    No. 03-7708.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 12, 2004.
    Decided Feb. 23, 2004.
    Robert H. Lenderman, Appellant pro se. Dana James Boente, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Robert H. Lenderman appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion to modify his sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. Under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000), the court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been imposed except in very narrow circumstances not applicable here. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Lenderman, No. CR-02-363-A (E.D. Va. filed Aug. 29, 2003 & entered Sept. 2, 2003; filed Oct. 1, 2003 & entered Oct. 2, 2003). We deny Lenderman’s motion for home confinement. 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 decline to address the issues Lenderman raises for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir.1993) (holding that claims raised for first time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional circumstances).