United States of America v. Rodney Wilson

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6223
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RODNEY WILSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (4:03-cr-70134-NKM-3)
Submitted: May 30, 2013 Decided: June 5, 2013
Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Wilson appeals the district court’s orders
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction
in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing
Guidelines Manual (2010) and denying reconsideration of that
order. We first conclude that the district court properly
determined that Wilson was not entitled to a reduction in his
sentence as his sentencing range was not impacted by Amendment
750. See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, we affirm the denial of Wilson’s
§ 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Wilson, No. 4:03–cr–70134–NKM-3
(W.D. Va. Dec. 13, 2012).
We also conclude that the district court lacked
authority to entertain Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. See
United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir. 2010).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying relief
on Wilson’s motion for reconsideration. 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 --