Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-27
Citations: 538 F. App'x 346
Docket Number: No. 13-6786
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 538
Pages: 346–347

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6786.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 22, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 27, 2013.
John Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
John Walker appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reconsideration of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Walker's informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Walker has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. In any event, the district court properly concluded that it lacked authority to consider Walker's motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010) (holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 forbids ruling on motion to reconsider § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction order). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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.