Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Toby HAYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-22
Citations: 641 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 15-7909
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Toby HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 641
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Toby HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7909.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2016.
Decided: March 22, 2016.
Christopher Toby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, John C. Potterfield, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorneys, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Toby Hayes appeals the district court's order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, as well as its order dismissing his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting Hayes' § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Hayes, No. 3:02-cr-00548-CMC-7 (D.S.C. Oct. 27, 2015). We also agree with the district court's assessment that it lacked authority to entertain Hayes' motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we likewise affirm the district court's order dismissing Hayes' motion for reconsideration. 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.
AFFIRMED.