US v. Calvin Clark

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:08-cr-00100-F-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999333868]. Mailed to: Calvin Clark. [13-7059]

Appeal: 13-7059

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7059

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CALVIN LAVAN CLARK,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:08-cr-00100-F-1)

Submitted:

April 7, 2014

Decided:

April 10, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Lavan Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Jason Harris Cowley,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Thomas B. Murphy, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7059

Doc: 13

Filed: 04/10/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Calvin Clark filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012)
motion, seeking the benefit of a recent amendment to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines.
because

Clark’s

The district court denied the motion

sentence

was

status, not on drug quantity.

based

on

denied.

for

career

offender

Clark moved for reconsideration,

and the district court denied relief.
motion

his

reconsideration,

which

Clark then filed a second
the

Clark appeals from this order.

district

court

also

We affirm.

A district court lacks authority to grant a motion to
reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion.

United States

v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010). Under Goodwyn,
Clark had only one opportunity to seek, through a § 3582(c)(2)
motion, the benefit of the amendment.

See id. at 235-36.

the

§ 3582(c)(2)

district

court

ruled

on

Clark’s

Once

motion,

it

lacked authority to grant subsequent relief—either by way of a
second § 3582(c)(2) motion or a motion for reconsideration of
the initial order.
Accordingly,

we

denying Clark’s motion.

affirm

the

district

court’s

order

We deny the motion for appointment of

counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

Appeal: 13-7059

Doc: 13

materials

before

Filed: 04/10/2014

the

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3