United States of America v. Tyvon Ricardo Preston, a/k/a Bow Wow

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6552
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYVON RICARDO PRESTON, a/k/a Bow Wow,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:10-cr-00054-SGW-4)
Submitted: August 27, 2013 Decided: September 5, 2013
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyvon Ricardo Preston, Appellant Pro Se. Charlene Rene Day,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
In 2011, Tyvon Ricardo Preston filed an 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion, seeking the benefit of Amendment 750
to the United States Sentencing Guidelines. The district court
denied the motion, concluding that Preston had received the
benefit of Amendment 750 at his original sentencing. Preston
did not appeal this decision. In 2013, Preston filed a second
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, again seeking the benefit of Amendment 750,
and the court denied relief. Preston appeals from this order.
We affirm.
In United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir.
2010), we held that a district court lacks authority to grant a
motion to reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Id.
at 234. Under Goodwyn, Preston had only one opportunity to
seek, through a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the benefit of Amendment
750. See id. at 235-36. Once the district court ruled on
Preston’s first § 3582(c)(2) motion, it lacked authority to
consider subsequent relief based on the same Amendment, either
by way of a second § 3582(c)(2) motion or a motion for
reconsideration of the initial order.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
denying Preston’s second § 3582(c)(2) motion. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this Court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --