Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Okang Kareen ROCHELLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 686 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 16-7766
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Okang Kareen ROCHELLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 177–177

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Okang Kareen ROCHELLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7766
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2017
Decided: April 25, 2017
Okang Kareen Rochelle, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ra-maswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Okang Kareen Rochelle appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), and denying his motion to alter or amend' the judgment. We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district court did not err in denying Rochelle's § 3582(c)(2) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Rochelle, No. 1:05-cr-00112-WO-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 27, 2016). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Rochelle's motion to alter or amend the judgment, we affirm the denial of that order. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that district court lacks authority to grant motion to reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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