UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-6400
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
NATHANIEL WATKINS, a/k/a J.R., a/k/a Peanut,
a/k/a Nut,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CR-90-260-A, CA-93-1035-AM)
Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 8, 2002
Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nathaniel Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Smythers, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Nathaniel Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying his motion filed under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3582(c)(2) (West
2000), which the court construed as being filed under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2001), and denying his motion for
reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinions and find no reversible error. Although the
district court construed Watkins’ claim that his base offense level
should be reduced to thirty-eight in accordance with Amendment 505
to the sentencing guidelines as being filed under § 2255, the claim
was properly brought under § 3582(c)(2). We find that any error in
construing that claim is harmless because, applying the Amendment
to Watkins’ case, he is not entitled to relief. We also find that
the district court properly denied Watkins’ remaining claims as
being successive. Finally, with regard to the denial of his motion
for reconsideration, Watkins failed to challenge that order in his
informal brief and, therefore, has waived appellate review under
4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal substantially on the reasoning of the district
court. United States v. Watkins, Nos. CR-90-260-A; CA-93-1035-AM
(E.D. Va. Jan. 4, 2002; Feb. 11, 2002). We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3