Filed: Aug. 03, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6094 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD FELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:93-cr-00123-F-1) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6094 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GERALD FELTON, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:93-cr-00123-F-1) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016 Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gerald F..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6094
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
GERALD FELTON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:93-cr-00123-F-1)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gerald Felton, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Felton appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion to reconsider the district court’s denial of his 18
U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion to reduce his sentence based
on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because the
district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Felton’s motion
for reconsideration, we affirm the denial of relief. See United
States v. Goodwyn,
596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010) (holding
that district court lacks authority to grant motion to
reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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
2