Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur OUTLAW, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Aceyon Rogers, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-09-30
Citations: 540 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 13-6999
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur OUTLAW, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Aceyon Rogers, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 540
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur OUTLAW, a/k/a Ace, a/k/a Aceyon Rogers, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6999.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 26, 2013.
Decided: Sept. 30, 2013.
Arthur Alan Outlaw, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Alan Outlaw appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Outlaw, No. 4:00-cr-70114-JLK-RSB-1 (W.D.Va. June 10, 2013). 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.
We further note that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) is not the appropriate mechanism to assert the retroactive application of Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013).