Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kunta Kenta REDD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-23
Citations: 627 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 14-7209
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kunta Kenta REDD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 627
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kunta Kenta REDD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7209.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 12, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2015.
Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kunta Kenta Redd appeals from the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his sentence. A district court's decision on whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while its conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision is reviewed de novo. United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 186 (4th Cir.2010).
Our review of the record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Redd's motion. See United States v. Smalls, 720 F.3d 193 (4th Cir.2013). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. United States v. Redd, No. 7:08-cr-00043-D-1 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 8, 2014). We deny Redd's motion to appoint counsel and 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.