Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-04-02
Citations: 517 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 12-7991
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 517
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7991.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 28, 2013.
Decided: April 2, 2013.
Matthew Campbell, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Campbell seeks to appeal the amended criminal judgment entered after the district court reduced his sentence pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). Campbell argues that the reduction the court awarded was inadequate in light of the nature of his substantial assistance. However, under 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2006), this court does not have "jurisdiction to review the extent of the district court's downward departure." United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 324 (4th Cir.1995); see United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 193-94 (4th Cir.2012) (explaining that, although the court may entertain "challenges to the lawfulness of the method used by the district court in making its sentencing decision," this court lacks "jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision"). Because the sole issue raised on appeal attacks the extent of the reduction the district court awarded, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.