Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Bernard GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-20
Citations: 470 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 12-6013
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Bernard GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 164–165

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Bernard GREEN, a/k/a Aaron O. Smith, Jr., a/k/a Calvin M. Green, a/k/a Calvin D. Smith, a/k/a Calvin Marvin Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Green, a/k/a Budda Smith, a/k/a Calvin Darnell Smith, a/k/a William Mingo Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6013.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2012.
Decided: March 20, 2012.
Calvin Bernard Green, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph W.H. Mott, Office of the United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Bernard Green appeals the district court's orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order denying Green's Rule 59(e) motion. United States v. Green, No. 7:99-cr-00032-JCT-1 (WD.Va. Dec. 16, 2011). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Because Green filed his motion for reconsideration of the court's order denying his § 3582(c)(2) motion within the twenty-eight-day time limit for motions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), we treat the motion as a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. Katyle v. Penn Nat'l Gaming, Inc., 637 F.3d 462, 471 n. 4 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 115, 181 L.Ed.2d 39 (2011).