US v. John Walker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:09-cr-00059-AWA-JEB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999181229]. Mailed to: John Walker. [13-6786]

Appeal: 13-6786

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6786

Doc: 7

Filed: 08/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 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.
4th Cir. R. 34(b).

See

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,

lacked

the

district

court

properly

concluded

that

it

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

reconsider § 3582(c)(2) sentence reduction order).
we affirm the district court’s judgment.

on

motion

to

Accordingly,

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