UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6887
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
JOSEPH ANDREW SADLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-93-160)
Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: March 18, 1997
Before HALL, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
C. Timothy Sullivan, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, David C. Stephens, Assistant
United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Sadler appeals the district court's order granting the
Government's motion for a under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
35(b) to reduce Sadler's sentence in light of his substantial
assistance to the Government. Although the district court reduced
Sadler's sentence from 400 months imprisonment to 380 months,
Sadler contends that the reduction was insufficient. We dismiss
Sadler's appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 3742(a) (West 1985 & Supp. 1997),
we have jurisdiction to entertain [Sadler's] appeal only
if his sentence (1) was imposed in violation of law, (2)
was imposed as a result of an incorrect application of
the Sentencing Guidelines, (3) is greater than the sen-
tence specified in the applicable guideline range, or
(4) was imposed for an offense for which there is no sen-
tencing guideline and is plainly unreasonable.
United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing 18
U.S.C.A. § 3742(a)). Consistent with Congress's intent, jurisdic-
tion under § 3742(a) is narrowly interpreted. See Hill, 70 F.3d at
323-24. After reviewing the district court's order, the parties'
briefs, and the applicable law, we conclude that Sadler is unable
to demonstrate any of these jurisdictional prerequisites and there-
fore we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. 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.
DISMISSED
2