United States v. Alexander

390 F. App'x 251
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Alexander. Read the opinion of the Court — 247 F. App'x 416
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided August 6, 2010·No. No. 10-6557·Published

Opinion

[252]*252Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Edward Alexander appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s earlier order granting his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for a reduction in sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234-36 (4th Cir.2010) (holding that district court lacked authority to grant defendant’s motion to reconsider, filed eight months after the district court’s order ruling on original § 3582(c)(2) motion). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States v. Alexander, 390 F. App'x 251 (4th Cir. 2010).

390 F. App'x 251 (United States v. Alexander) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Goodwyn
596 F.3d 233 (Fourth Circuit, 2010)