Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee PRITCHETT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-23
Citations: 460 F. App'x 214
Docket Number: No. 11-7447
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee PRITCHETT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 460
Pages: 214–215

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee PRITCHETT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7447.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 20, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2011.
Ricky Lee Pritchett, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Pritchett appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Pritchett has also filed a motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp.2011) for authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
With respect to the denial of Pritchett's 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Pritchett, No. 4:03-cr-70162-JLK-1 (W.D.Va. Oct. 17, 2011). Moreover, we deny as moot Pritchett's motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and his motion for reconsideration of our previous order deferring consideration of this motion.
Furthermore, permission to file a § 2255 motion is required only when a movant seeks to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Pritchett has not previously filed a § 2255 motion in the district court. Therefore, we deny the motion as unnecessary.
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.