Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Olive ROWLAND, a/k/a James Roland Lillie, a/k/a James Rowland Lilly, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-02-07
Citations: 3 F. App'x 55
Docket Number: No. 00-6836
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Olive ROWLAND, a/k/a James Roland Lillie, a/k/a James Rowland Lilly, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 3
Pages: 55–56

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Olive ROWLAND, a/k/a James Roland Lillie, a/k/a James Rowland Lilly, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 00-6836.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2001.
Decided Feb. 7, 2001.
James Olive Rowland, pro se.
Sandra Jane Hairston, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, NC, for appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
James Olive Rowland appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West 2000). Amendment 506 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, upon which Rowland's motion relies, has been superseded by Amendment 567 in response to the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751, 117 S.Ct. 1673, 137 L.Ed.2d 1001 (1997). USSG App.C Am. 506 & 567. Rowland's remaining claims fall outside the scope of a motion brought under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c). Rowland also improperly raises issues for the first time on appeal. See Grossman v. Comm'r, 182 F.3d 275, 280-81 (4th Cir.1999); Skipper v. French, 130 F.3d 603, 610 (4th Cir. 1997) (applying rule to a criminal cas exciting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S. 552, 556, 61 S.Ct. 719, 85 L.Ed. 1037 (1941) for explanation of rule's basis).
We deny Rowland's request for appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We deny the request for preparation of transcripts at government expense as moot. 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.