Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Kaleiba Shonnta BOULER, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-20
Citations: 474 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 12-6617
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Kaleiba Shonnta BOULER, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 218–218

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Kaleiba Shonnta BOULER, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 12-6617.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 14, 2012.
Decided: June 20, 2012.
Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler appeals the district court's order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006). As we have recognized, however, a district court has no authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010). And in any event, it is evident from the record that Bouler is ineligible for the sentence reduction that she seeks. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. United States v. Bouler, No. 3:07-cr-00010-FDW-3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2012) We 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.
We note as well that Bouler's notice of appeal was untimely filed. See Fed. R.App. P. 4(b)(l)(A)(i). Nevertheless, because Rule 4(b)'s time limits are not jurisdictional, because the Government has not invoked the time bar, and because we do not find that the delay was inordinate, we decline to dismiss Bouler's appeal on the grounds of untimeliness. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir.2010) (stating that non-statutory claim-processing rules are not jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir.2009); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir.2008).