Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0054-01.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. Frank ESQUIVEL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-6834
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 22, 2016
    Decided: November 28, 2016
    Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frank Esquivel appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying Esquivel’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Esquivel, No. 5:05-cr-00026-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2016). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Esquivel’s motion for reconsideration, we affirm the denial of that order. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court lacks authority to grant motion to reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED