Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07215/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07215-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hakim Abdulah Rashid
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7215

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HAKIM ABDULAH RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. 

(4:10-cr-00941-RBH-1)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker 

Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7215 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Hakim Abdulah Rashid appeals the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 motion to correct an alleged 

error in the district court’s order granting his 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction. Although the 

district court correctly construed the motion as a motion for 

reconsideration, cf. Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 (“After giving any 

notice it considers appropriate, the court may . . . correct a 

clerical error in a judgment, order, or other part of the 

record, or correct an error in the record arising from oversight 

or omission.” (emphasis added)), because the district court 

lacked authority to reconsider its order granting Rashid’s 

§ 3582(c)(2) motion, see United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 

235-36 (4th Cir. 2010), we affirm the district court’s order. 

See United States v. Rashid, No. 4:10-cr-00941-RBH-1 (D.S.C. 

July 28, 2015). 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 in the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 15-7215 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 2