The Honor able T.S. Ellis, I I I , of the United States District Court for the Easter

n District * of Virg inia, sitti ngby

designation. 08 -48 98 -cr US A v . Ma ddox 

### UNI TED S TATES COURT OF AP P EALS

FO R TH E SEC O N D C IRC U IT 

# S UMM ARY ORDE R
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 14 day

of January , two thousand ten. th PRES ENT: WI L FRED F EI NB ERG, ROBERT A. K

ATZ MANN, Circuit Judges , T . S
. E LLIS , III ,

District Judge. *

__________________________________________ United States of America,

Appellee , v. 08-4898-c r D e r r ic k M a d d o x, Defendant- Appellant
.

_________________________________Be cause we ha ve dete rmined that the district cour t properly denied Appe llant’s motion 1 for r econside ration, we need not de termine whe ther that motion was timely filed in the district court. See U

nited States v. Canova , 412 F.3d 331, 348 ( 2d Cir. 2005) (dec lining to consider a jurisdictional question not briefed by the par ties beca use the re cord a

mply supported af

firmanc e of the district cour

t’s dispositi on). 2 1 FOR APPEL LANT: Der rick Maddox, pro s e , F o rtD i x, N . J. 2 3 F OR

APP ELL EE : Kathl e e n M . M e hlt re tte r, Un ite d St ate s Atto rn e y (M on ic a J. Ric ha rd s, 4 Assistant United States Attorney , of counsel , L isa C. Chan, L aw Student 5 Intern, on the brief ), B uffa lo, N.Y. 6 7 Appea l from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of 8 New Y ork (L arimer , J. ). 9 UP ON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, A ND 10 DECREED that, to the extent thi s appea l purports to challeng e the district cour t’s order of June 11 10 , 2 00 8, thea pp e a l is DI SM ISSED as untimely ; to the ext ent the appe al is from the district 12 c ourt ’s or de r o f S e pte mbe r 2 2, 20 08 , th at or de r i s AF F IRMED. We p re sume the pa rt ie s’ 13 fa

mil iari ty wi th t he fa c ts a nd iss ue s o n a

pp e a l. 14 This Court mustdismiss the portion of the a ppeal that c halleng es the district cour t’s J une 15 10 , 2 00 8 o rd e r d e nyingAp pe lla nt’ s mo tio n f

or a re du c tio n in

se nte nc e purs ua

nt t o 1 8 U .S. C. 16 § 3582(c) (2) be cause the notice of appea l was untimely

filed with respe ct to that order and the 17 Gover

nment has ra ised the issue in its brief. See U nited States v. Frias , 521 F.3d 229, 234 ( 2d 18 Cir. 2008) (“When the g overnme nt properly objects to the untimeliness of a de fenda nt’s 19 criminal appe al, Rule 4(b) is mandatory and inflexible.”). 20 Although the appea l is ti mely with respec t to the district court’s September 22, 2008 21 or de r d e nyingre c on sid e ratio n o f t he June 10 , 2 00 8 o rd e r, Ap pe lla nt’ s c ha lle ng e to t

hat or de r i s 22 wi tho ut m e ri t. Ap pe lla nt’ s argume nt t

hat th e dis tr ic t c ourt

imp ro pe rl y

de nie d h is 1 8 U .S. C. 1J udg e Ellis wishes to acknowle dg e that this holding is contra ry to his opini on in United 2 Sta te s v . D e ws , 5 5 1 F. 3 d

2 0 4 (4 thC i r. 2 0 0 8 ) ( re h eari n g en banc grante d Fe bruar y 20, 2009, re h eari n g en banc dismiss ed as moot May 4, 2009). Judge Ellis also rec ognizes that, sit ting by designation on the Second Circuit, he is bound by this Ci rcuit’s c ontrolling a uthority in Ma in . 3 1 § 3582(c) (2) motion based on a waiver of the right to file such a motion is unavailing . The 2 district court did not deny his moti on based on the waiver ; rather , the district court de nied the 3 motion because Appellant had be en sente nced pur suant to a Rule 11(c )(1) (C) plea agree ment. 4 Moreove r, this Court has held that a de fenda nt, such as Appe llant, who was sente nced pur suant 5 to a binding ple a agree ment made pur suant to Rule 11(c)( 1)(C) of the Fe dera l Rules of Criminal 6 Procedur e, is not entitled to a reduc tion in sentence pur suant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
. See 7 Un ite d S

tate s v . M ain , 579 F.3d 200, 202- 03 (2d Cir. 2009). 2 8 Ac c or din g ly , f or thefo re g oin gre a so ns , th is a pp e a l is DI SM ISSED as untimely as to the 9 district court’s June 10, 2008 order, a nd the district court’s Septe mber 22, 2008 orde r deny ing 10 r e c o n s i d e r at i o ni s h e r e b y AF F IRM ED . 11 12 FOR THECOURT: 13 Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk 14 By :________________________