UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7841
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HASSAAN HAAKIM RASHAAD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:01-cr-00195-MOC-1)
Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hassaan Haakim Rashaad, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hassaan Haakim Rashaad appeals the district court’s
orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for
reduction in his sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S.
Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2010) and denying relief on his
motion for reconsideration of that order. We first conclude
that the district court properly determined that Rashaad was
ineligible for a sentence reduction because his sentencing range
was determined by his career offender designation, not a
calculation of the drug quantity attributable to Rashaad, and
thus was not impacted by Amendment 750. See United States v.
Munn, 595 F.3d 183, 187 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm
the denial of Rashaad’s § 3582(c)(2) motion for the reasons
stated by the district court. See United States v. Rashaad, No.
3:01–cr–00195–MOC-1 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2012).
We also conclude that the district court lacked
authority to entertain Rashaad’s motion for reconsideration.
See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235–36 (4th Cir.
2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order
denying relief on Rashaad’s motion for reconsideration. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2