US v. Steven McKelvey, No. 12-7469 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7469 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEVEN MCKELVEY, a/k/a Custard, a/k/a C, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:00-cr-00380-GRA-1) Submitted: December 17, 2012 Decided: January 9, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven McKelvey, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven McKelvey filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion, seeking the benefit Sentencing Guidelines. of Amendment 750 of the U.S. The district court denied the motion because McKelvey s sentence was not based on the Guidelines, but instead on the statutorily mandated minimum sentence. McKelvey then filed a Motion to Assert Jurisdiction, contending that the district court erroneously denied his § 3582(c)(2) motion. The district court construed McKelvey s motion as a second § 3582(c)(2) motion seeking the benefit of Amendment 750 and denied relief. McKelvey appeals from this order. We affirm. In United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233 (4th Cir. 2010), we held that a district court lacks authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. at 234. Id. Under Goodwyn, McKelvey had only one opportunity to seek, through a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the benefit of Amendment 750. See id. at 235-36. McKelvey s grant first § 3582(c)(2) subsequent § 3582(c)(2) Once the district court ruled on motion relief or a -- motion, it lacked either by way authority of a motion for the district second reconsideration affirm to of the initial order. Accordingly, we court s order denying McKelvey s motion. AFFIRMED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.