Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-05
Citations: 523 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 13-6223
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 523
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodney WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6223.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 30, 2013.
Decided: June 5, 2013.
Rodney Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Wilson appeals the district court's orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) and denying reconsideration of that order. We first conclude that the district court properly determined that Wilson was not entitled to a reduction in his sentence as his sentencing range was not impacted by Amendment 750. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Wilson's § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Wilson, No. 4:03-cr-70134-NKM-3 (W.D.Va. Dec. 13, 2012).
We also conclude that the district court lacked authority to entertain Wilson's motion for reconsideration. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying relief on Wilson's motion for reconsideration. 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.