The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
13-6786•United States of America v. John Walker
13-6786Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitAug 27, 2013
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6786
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN WALKER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda Wright Allen,
District Judge. (4:09-cr-00059-AWA-JEB-1)
Submitted: August 22, 2013 Decided: August 27, 2013
Before MOTZ, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Walker, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II,
Eric Matthew Hurt, Assistant United States Attorneys, Newport
News, Virginia; Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United
States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
John Walker appeals the district court’s order denying
his motion for reconsideration of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)
(2006) motion for a sentence reduction. On appeal, we confine
our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Walker’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Walker
has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. In any
event, the district court properly concluded that it lacked
authority to consider Walker’s motion for reconsideration. See
United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010)
(holding that 18 U.S.C. § 3582 forbids ruling on motion to
reconsider § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction order). Accordingly,
we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.