Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-23
Citations: 519 F. App'x 153
Docket Number: No. 12-7996
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 519
Pages: 153–154

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick Lamar WILLIAMS, a/k/a Rox, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7996.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 15, 2013.
Decided: April 23, 2013.
Roderick Lamar Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office Of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Lamar Williams appeals the district court's order denying him a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Williams' motion to place this appeal in abeyance, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Williams, No. 5:03-cr-00004-RLV-DSC-8 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 31, 2012). 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 the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Although the district court indicated that it entered the order upon motion of the defendant, we note that the court entered the order upon its own motion. Because Williams is not entitled to a sentence reduction, however, we conclude that remand to correct this error would be pointless.