Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hassaan Haakim RASHAAD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-28
Citations: 512 F. App'x 294
Docket Number: No. 12-7841
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hassaan Haakim RASHAAD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 512
Pages: 294–294

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Hassaan Haakim RASHAAD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7841.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 28, 2013.
Hassaan Haakim Rashaad, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals the district court's orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) and denying relief on his motion for reconsideration of that order. We first conclude that the district court properly determined that Rashaad was ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentencing range was determined by his career offender designation, not a calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Rashaad, and thus was not impacted by Amendment 750. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Rashaad's § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Rashaad, No. 3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2012).
We also conclude that the district court lacked authority to entertain Rashaad's motion for reconsideration. See Umted States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order denying relief on Ra-shaad's motion for reconsideration. 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.