Case ID: f-appx_409/html/0663-02.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. Raj Kumar BANSAL, a/k/a The Old Man, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-7165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 18, 2011.
    Decided: Jan. 26, 2011.
    
      Raj Kumar Bansal, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Joseph Grooms, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Raj Kumar Bansal appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to reduce his sentence based on his assistance to the government. A district court may modify a defendant’s sentence only as provided by statute. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006) (providing circumstances in which a term of imprisonment can be altered once imposed); United States v. Dunphy, 551 F.3d 247, 250 (4th Cir.2009). Because this case does not involve a motion by the Director of the Bureau of Prisons or a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35 motion by the United States Attorney, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that it lacked the authority to alter the sentence imposed. Accordingly, we affirm its judgment, and dismiss Bansal’s motion for a expedited ruling on the existing pleadings as moot. 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.