UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. The district court denied the motion
because Clark’s sentence was based on his career offender
status, not on drug quantity. Clark moved for reconsideration,
and the district court denied relief. Clark then filed a second
motion for reconsideration, which the district court also
denied. Clark appeals from this order. 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. Once
the district court ruled on Clark’s § 3582(c)(2) 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 affirm the district court’s order
denying Clark’s motion. We deny the motion for appointment of
counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3