US v. Frank Esquivel

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:05-cr-00026-F-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999975528]. Mailed to: Frank Esquivel. [16-6834]

Appeal: 16-6834

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6834

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
FRANK ESQUIVEL,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

November 28, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se.
Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United
States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6834

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Frank Esquivel appeals the district court’s orders denying
relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction
of sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration.

We have

reviewed the record and find that the district court did not
abuse

its

considerable

§ 3582(c)(2)

motion.

§ 3582(c)(2)

relief

discretion

Accordingly,
on

the

in
we

reasoning

denying

affirm
of

the

Esquivel’s

the

denial

district

of

court.

United States v. Esquivel, No. 5:05-cr-00026-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr.
13, 2016).

Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to

consider Esquivel’s motion for reconsideration, we affirm the
denial of that order.
233,

234

(4th

Cir.

See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d

2010)

(holding

that

district

court

lacks

authority to grant motion to reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2)
motion).
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

2