Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Lavan CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-10
Citations: 565 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 13-7059
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Calvin Lavan CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 565
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Calvin Lavan CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7059.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 7, 2014.
Decided: April 10, 2014.
Calvin Lavan Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Thomas B. Murphy, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Clark filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion, seeking the benefit of a recent amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. The district court denied the motion because Clark's sentence was based on his career offender status, not on drug quantity. Clark moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied relief. Clark then filed a second motion for reconsideration, which the district court also denied. Clark appeals from this order. We affirm.
A district court lacks authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir.2010). Under Goodwyn, Clark had only one opportunity to seek, through a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the benefit of the amendment. See id. at 235-36. Once the district court ruled on Clark's § 3582(c)(2) motion, it lacked authority to grant subsequent relief — either by way of a second § 3582(c)(2) motion or a motion for reconsideration of the initial order.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying Clark's motion. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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.