UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6818
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
DAVID WILBERT SHANTON, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. W. Craig Broadwater,
District Judge. (CA-89-250-3)
Submitted: August 17, 2001 Decided: October 10, 2001
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Sherry L. Muncy,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
David Wilbert Shanton, Sr., appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C.A.
§ 3582(c)(2) (West 2000). We have reviewed the record, the dis-
trict court’s opinion, and Shanton’s informal appellate brief.
Because he failed to challenge on appeal the district court’s
ruling rejecting his claim based upon Amendment 591 to the Sen-
tencing Guidelines, Shanton has not preserved any issue for our
review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of
the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States
v. Shanton, No. CR-89-250-3 (N.D.W. Va. Apr. 23, 2001).
In his informal brief, Shanton seeks a reduction in his
sentence under § 3582 based upon Amendment 599 to the Sentencing
Guidelines. His claim is tantamount to a second § 3582 motion.
Because “[t]he power to reconsider a sentence lies with the
district court, see 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), and not the court of
appeals,” we dismiss this portion of the appeal without prejudice
to Shanton’s right to file his claim in the district court in the
first instance. United States v. Jones, 55 F.3d 289, 296 (7th Cir.
1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART AND DISMISSED IN PART
2