MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Denying Motion to Reduce Sentence)

HENRY E. HUDSON, Senior District Judge.

Maurice Kearse filed this motion seeking a lesser sentence based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation. Once a defendant is sentenced, the Court has no inherent authority to reconsider the defendant's sentence. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting United States v. Cunningham, 554 F.3d 703, 708 (7th Cir. 2009)). To the extent Kearse wishes to file a motion for a reduction in sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582, he may not raise challenges to his original sentence in such a motion. See United States v. Dawkins, 535 F. App'x 307, 308 (4th Cir. 2013) (explaining that challenges to an original conviction and sentence "are not cognizable in a § 3582 proceeding" (citing United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir. 2011))). Motions made by defendants under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 may only raise issues related to retroactive amendments to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2); United States v. Mann, 435 F. App'x 254, 255 (4th Cir. 2011). Although Kearse mentions 18 U.S.C. § 3582 in his Motion to Reduce Sentence, he fails to identify any retroactive amendment to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. Additionally, Kearse fails to identify a procedural vehicle that would permit the Court at this juncture to reduce his sentence based on his post-sentencing rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Motion to Reduce Sentence (ECF No. 32) will be DENIED.

An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.