UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6617
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KALEIBA SHONNTA BOULER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:07-cr-00010-FDW-3)
Submitted: June 14, 2012 Decided: June 20, 2012
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kaleiba Shonnta Bouler appeals the district court’s
order denying her motion to reconsider the denial of her motion
seeking a reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582 (2006).
As we have recognized, however, a district court has no
authority to grant a motion to reconsider its previous order
denying a 3582(c) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d
233, 235-36 (4th Cir. 2010). And in any event, it is evident
from the record that Bouler is ineligible for the sentence
reduction that she seeks. * Accordingly, we affirm the judgment
of the district court. United States v. Bouler, No. 3:07-cr-
00010-FDW-3 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 6, 2012) 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
*
We note as well that Bouler’s notice of appeal was
untimely filed. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A)(i).
Nevertheless, because Rule 4(b)’s time limits are not
jurisdictional, because the Government has not invoked the time
bar, and because we do not find that the delay was inordinate,
we decline to dismiss Bouler’s appeal on the grounds of
untimeliness. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 810 (4th Cir.
2010) (stating that non-statutory claim-processing rules are not
jurisdictional); United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685
(4th Cir. 2009); United States v. Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744,
750 (10th Cir. 2008).
2