United States v. Brannon

42 F. App'x 627

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

John E. Brannon appeals the district court’s order dismissing his motion to reduce his sentence. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. We agree with the district court’s holding that the statutes on which Brannon relied provide no basis for relief. Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Brannon, Nos. CR-95-370; CA-02-1183-7-20 (D.S.C. Apr. 12, 2002). * 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.

* The district court, after holding the statutes on which Brannon relied provide no basis for relief, alternatively construed Brannon’s motion as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). Brannon previously filed a § 2255 motion, and has not received this Court’s authorization to file a subsequent § 2255 motion. Accordingly, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Brannon’s motion for modification of his sentence as arising under § 2255. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(3)(A)-(C), 2255 11 8 (2000).