Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Moses WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-29
Citations: 653 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 16-6511
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Moses WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Moses WILKERSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6511
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2016
Decided: June 29, 2016
Robert Moses Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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