United States v. Frank Esquivel

671 F. App'x 54
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided November 28, 2016·No. 16-6834·Unpublished

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Frank Esquivel appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its considerable discretion in denying Esquivel’s § 3582(c)(2) motion. Accordingly, we affirm the denial of § 3582(c)(2) relief on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Esquivel, No. 5:05-cr-00026-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2016). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Esquivel’s motion for reconsideration, we affirm the denial of that order. 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

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

United States v. Frank Esquivel, 671 F. App'x 54 (4th Cir. 2016).

671 F. App'x 54 (United States v. Frank Esquivel) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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