Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Payne, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-22
Citations: 334 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: Nos. 09-6353, 09-7099
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Payne, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 334
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald PAYNE, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Payne, a/k/a Raheem, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 09-6353, 09-7099.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2009.
Ronald Payne, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
In Case No. 09-6353, Ronald Payne appeals the district court's order denying his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and denying his motion to compel the Government to move for a sentence reduction pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Payne, No. 3:01-cr-00506-JFA-1 (D.S.C. Feb. 17, 2009).
In Case No. 09-7099, which has been consolidated with No. 09-6353, Payne appeals the district court's docket order denying his motion to compel the court reporter to produce a transcript of his hearing prior to June 1, 2009. We uphold the district court's denial of the motion to compel. Payne was not entitled to dictate the timing for the preparation of the transcript and has failed to show that he was prejudiced by any delay in preparation.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders in both cases. 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.