United States of America, Plaintiff--appellee, v. Henry Alexander Crockett, Defendant--appellant, 47 F.3d 1166 (4th Cir. 1995)

Appellant appeals from the district court's denial of his Fed. R. Crim. P. 35 motion to correct illegal sentence and denial of reconsideration. Our review of the record reveals that the district court properly denied the Rule 35 motion because Appellant failed to allege any grounds for relief. Accordingly, we affirm that order.

Appellant also filed a motion for reconsideration, which the district court construed as an attack on an earlier order denying Appellant's third 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1988) motion. Our review of the record reveals that the district court should have construed the motion for reconsideration as relating to the denial of the Rule 35 motion to correct illegal sentence. However, because both the Rule 35 motion and Appellant's third Sec. 2255 motion alleged the same grounds for relief, the district court's denial of reconsideration was correct. Accordingly, we affirm the orders of the district court. United States v. Crockett, Nos. CR-85-328-H; CA-92-3667-AH (D. Md. Jan. 4 and Feb. 14, 1994). 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.

AFFIRMED.