Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hakim Abdulah RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 17-6649
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hakim Abdulah RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hakim Abdulah RASHID, a/k/a Rodney Buchanan, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6649
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Hakim Abdulah Rashid, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina; Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hakim Abdulah Rashid appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines, as well as his pro se motion to modify his term of imprisonment and his petition for a writ of error coram nobis, which also sought relief under Amendment 782. The district court l'ecognized that Rashid already received the benefit of Amendment 782 when it granted Rashid's previous § 3582(c)(2) motion and, thus, it sua sponte determined that it lacked authority to entertain Rash-id's motions under United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding that nothing authorizes a district court to reconsider its order on a § 3582 motion). In United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271 (4th Cir.), pet. for cert. filed, No. 17-142 (U.S. July 24, 2017), however, we clarified that the prohibition against "§ 3582(c)(2)-based motions for reconsideration" is not jurisdictional and, thus, is "waived when the government failed to assert it below." Id. at 274. Accordingly, the district court did not lack authority to entertain Rashid's motions.
We need not remand this matter to the district court, though, because it is clear that Rashid is entitled to no further relief under Amendment 782. Namely, the district court sentenced Rashid to the bottom of his amended Guidelines range when it granted Rashid's prior § 3582(c)(2) motion. See United States v. Rashid, No. 4:10-cr-00941-RBH-1 (D.S.C. Jun. 29, 2015). Because Rashid's original below-Guidelines sentence was not the result of a Government motion for a substantial assistance reduction, Rashid is ineligible for any further sentence reduction under Amendment 782. See USSG § lB1.10(b)(2) (2017) (providing that a district court máy not impose a sentence below the bottom of an amended Guidelines range unless the original term of imprisonment was below the original Guidelines range as a- result of a Government substantial assistance motion). Since we may affirm the district court's order "on any grounds apparent from the record[,]" United States v. Riley, 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.) (internal quotation marks omitted), pet. for cert, filed, No. 17-5559 (U.S. Aug. 7, 2017), we affirm the district court's order on the alternate ground that Rashid is ineligible for a further sentence reduction under Amendment 782. 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