US v. Rodney Wilson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:03-cr-70134-NKM-3. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999122959]. Mailed to: R. Wilson. [13-6223]

Appeal: 13-6223

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/05/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6223

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/05/2013

Pg: 2 of 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
order.

Manual

We

(2010)

first

and

conclude

denying

that

the

reconsideration

of

district

properly

court

that

determined that Wilson was not entitled to a reduction in his
sentence as his sentencing range was not impacted by Amendment
750.
2010).

See United States v. Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir.
Accordingly,

§ 3582(c)(2)
court.

motion

for

we

affirm

the

the

reasons

denial

stated

by

of

Wilson’s

the

district

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