UNITED STATES v. HALL (2018)

Wainsworth Marcellus Hall appeals the district court's orders denying his motion for a sentence reduction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012), and denying his motion to supplement the record. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.^* United States v. Hall, No. 2:93-cr-00162-RAJ-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 1, 2018 & Mar. 7, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conclusions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   To the extent Hall's motion challenged the drug amount attributed to him at sentencing, such claim is not properly raised in a § 3582 motion. United States v. Stewart, 595 F.3d 197, 201 (4th Cir. 2010) (noting § 3582 proceeding is “not considered a full resentencing by the court”).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.