Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dennis Carl HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Alfred Caldwell, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-14
Citations: 235 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: Nos. 06-7409, 06-7410
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennis Carl HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred Caldwell, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Dennis Carl HARRIS, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Alfred Caldwell, a/k/a Big Al, Defendant—Appellant.
Nos. 06-7409, 06-7410.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 14, 2007.
Dennis Carl Harris, Alfred Caldwell, Appellants Pro Se. Laura Marie Ever-hart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Dennis Harris and Alfred Caldwell appeal the district court's orders denying their motions for modification of their sentences, filed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000), and denying reconsideration of those orders. We have reviewed the record and find the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. Accordingly, although we grant Appellants' motions to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Harris, No. 2:92-cr-00113-01 (E.D. Va. May 19, 2006; July 31, 2006); United States v. Caldwell, No. 2:92-cr-00113-03 (E.D. Va. May 19, 2006; July 20, 2006). 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.