United States v. Gregory Oxendine ( 2000 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 99-4628
GREGORY OXENDINE,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Chief District Judge.
(CR-97-559)
Submitted: April 27, 2000
Decided: May 4, 2000
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges,
and BUTNZER, Senior Circuit Judge.
_________________________________________________________________
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Debra Owens Jackson, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellant. J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, Robert H. Bickerton, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Oxendine pled guilty to conspiracy to possess with intent
to distribute and to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846(1994), and was sentenced to a term of ninety-two months incarcera-
tion, but was continued on bond to allow him to continue cooperation
with the government. The government later moved for a reduction of
sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Proce-
dure, based on his substantial assistance. The district court granted the
motion and reduced Oxendine's sentence to sixty months. Oxendine
appeals the reduced sentence, challenging the extent of the district
court's reduction. We find that we lack jurisdiction to review the
extent of the reduction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3741(a) (1994); see also
United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 149-50 (4th Cir. 1995) (hold-
ing that § 3742(a) governs appeals of rulings on Rule 35(b) motions);
United States v. Hill, 70 F.3d 321, 323-24 (4th Cir. 1995) (finding
that appellant review of extent of downward departure is not autho-
rized under § 3742(a)).
We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dis-
pense 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