United States v. Ricky Pritchett , 460 F. App'x 214 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7447
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICKY LEE PRITCHETT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:03-cr-70162-JLK-1)
Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Pritchett, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Pritchett appeals the district court’s order
denying his motion for a reduction of his sentence pursuant to
18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006). Pritchett has also filed a
motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and a motion
pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h) (West Supp. 2011) for
authorization to file a second or successive § 2255 motion.
With respect to the denial of Pritchett’s 18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c)(2) motion, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court. United States v. Pritchett, No. 4:03-cr-
70162-JLK-1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 17, 2011). Moreover, we deny as moot
Pritchett’s motion for the appointment of appellate counsel, and
his motion for reconsideration of our previous order deferring
consideration of this motion.
Furthermore, permission to file a § 2255 motion is
required only when a movant seeks to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. Pritchett has not previously filed a § 2255
motion in the district court. Therefore, we deny the motion as
unnecessary.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3