Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick BLACK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-02
Citations: 101 F. App'x 938
Docket Number: No. 04-6546
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick BLACK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 938–938

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roderick BLACK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6546.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2004.
Decided: July 2, 2004.
Roderick Black, Appellant pro se.
Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Roderick Black appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice Black's motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2000). Black contends that he is entitled to a reduction in sentence based upon Amendments 505 and 516 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which reduced the upper limit of the Drug Quantity Table and became effective November 1, 1995. This claim was raised and rejected in Black's earlier § 3582 motion. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. 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
The district court construed Black's § 3582(c) motion as a motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed it without prejudice on the ground that it was successive. To the extent that Black's motion could be construed as a § 2255 motion, relief would not be warranted because it would be successive.