US v. Robert Wilkerson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:96-cr-00167-H-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999873302]. Mailed to: Robert Moses Wilkerson. [16-6511]

Appeal: 16-6511

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6511

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MOSES WILKERSON,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00167-H-1)

Submitted:

June 23, 2016

Decided:

June 29, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert
Moses
Wilkerson,
Appellant
Pro
Se.
Jennifer
P.
May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6511

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Robert Moses Wilkerson appeals the district court’s order
denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for sentence
reduction based on Amendment 782 to the Sentencing Guidelines,
as

well

as

its

reconsideration.
district

court

order

denying

Wilkerson’s

motion

for

We have reviewed the record and agree with the
that

Amendment

782

did

not

alter

Guidelines range on his narcotics conviction.

Wilkerson’s

Thus, we affirm

the district court’s order denying § 3582(c)(2) relief.

See

United States v. Wilkerson, No. 5:96-cr-00167-H-1 (E.D.N.C. Jan.
14, 2016).
In

addition,

reconsider

its

the

order

district

denying

court

lacked

Wilkerson’s

authority

§ 3582(c)(2)

to

motion.

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235-36 (4th Cir.
2010).

Accordingly, we also affirm the district court’s order

denying

Wilkerson’s

States v.
2016).
legal

Wilkerson,

motion
No.

for

reconsideration.

5:96-cr-00167-H-1

See

(E.D.N.C.

United

Mar.

30,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

materials

before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED

2