Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Lee ZATER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-21
Citations: 600 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 15-6148
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Lee ZATER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ryan Lee ZATER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6148.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2015.
Decided: April 21, 2015.
Ryan Lee Zater, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed in part dismissed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ryan Lee Zater appeals the district court's order denying his motion for reduction of sentence. We agree with the district court that . neither 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) nor Fed.R. Crim.P. 35 authorizes such a reduction, and we therefore affirm the district court's ruling.
The court also ruled that Zater's motion was, in effect, an unauthorized successive motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) over which it lacked jurisdiction. The district court's determination that it lacked jurisdiction over a successive motion without authorization from this court is not debatable or wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2244, 2253(c)(1)(B), 2255(h) (2012). Therefore, to the extent Zater seeks to challenge that decision, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm in part and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral ar gument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED 7-AT D/j T>rp