Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter G. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-05-25
Citations: 653 F. App'x 779
Docket Number: No. 15-7901
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter G. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 653
Pages: 779–779

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter G. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7901
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2016
Decided: May 25, 2016
Walter G. Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter G. Brown appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). Generally, we review an order denying a § 3582(e)(2) motion for abuse of discretion. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir. 2010). We review de novo, however, a district court's determination of the scope of its authority under § 3582(c)(2). United States v. Williams, 808 F.3d 253, 256 (4th Cir. 2015). Based on our review of the record and relevant legal authorities, we conclude that the district court did not err in determining that it lacked authority to grant Brown's motion for a sentence reduction. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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.