Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond McArthur BEALL, a/k/a Raymond Bell, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-03
Citations: 584 F. App'x 133
Docket Number: No. 14-6645
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond McArthur BEALL, a/k/a Raymond Bell, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 584
Pages: 133–133

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Raymond McArthur BEALL, a/k/a Raymond Bell, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 30, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 3, 2014.
Raymond McArthur Beall, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Beall appeals from the district court's order denying his motion for a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2012). On appeal, Beall challenges his original sentence and raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. These claims, however, are not cognizable under § 3582. Moreover, Beall's failure to challenge the actual basis for the district court's decision has waived review. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); Wahi v. Charleston Area Med. Ctr., Inc., 562 F.3d 599, 607 (4th Cir.2009) (limiting appellate review to arguments raised in the brief in accordance with Fed. R.App. P. 28(a)(9)(A)); Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n. 4 (4th Cir.2004) (noting that appellate assertions not supported by argument are deemed abandoned). Accordingly, we affirm. 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.