Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06834/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06834-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Esquivel
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FRANK ESQUIVEL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1)

Submitted: November 22, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6834 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

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

Appeal: 16-6834 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 2