Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph HUNT, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randolph Hunt, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-11-05
Citations: 400 F. App'x 725
Docket Number: Nos. 09-7654, 09-7698
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randolph HUNT, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randolph Hunt, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 400
Pages: 725–726

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randolph HUNT, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randolph Hunt, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 09-7654, 09-7698.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 26, 2010.
Decided: Nov. 5, 2010.
Randolph Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randolph Hunt appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for correction of clerical error pursuant to Fed. R.Crim.P. 36, and granting his motion for sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Hunt contends that two prior convictions were invalid, and thus their inclusion in the calculation of his criminal history category at the time of his original sentencing proceeding was erroneous. However, this belated challenge to his criminal history category cannot be remedied by way of a Rule 36 motion or a § 3582 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's orders. See United States v. Hunt, Nos. 3:02-cr-00199-FDW-1; 3:06-cv-00471-FDW (W.D.N.C. June 1 & Aug. 27, 2009). 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.