Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06511/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06511-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Robert Moses Wilkerson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MOSES WILKERSON,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, 

Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00167-H-1)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Moses Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. 

May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6511 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Moses Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order 

denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence 

reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, 

as well as its order denying Wilkerson’s motion for 

reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and agree with the 

district court that Amendment 782 did not alter Wilkerson’s 

Guidelines range on his narcotics conviction. Thus, we affirm 

the district court’s order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief. See

United States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 

14, 2016). 

In addition, the district court lacked authority to 

reconsider its order denying Wilkerson’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. 

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 

2010). Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order 

denying Wilkerson’s motion for reconsideration. See United 

States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 

2016). 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: 16-6511 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 2