US v. Calvin Clark, No. 13-7059 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7059 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. CALVIN LAVAN CLARK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:08-cr-00100-F-1) Submitted: April 7, 2014 Decided: April 10, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Lavan Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jason Harris Cowley, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Thomas B. Murphy, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin Clark filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion, seeking the benefit of a recent amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. because Clark s The district court denied the motion sentence was status, not on drug quantity. based on denied. for career offender Clark moved for reconsideration, and the district court denied relief. motion his reconsideration, which Clark then filed a second the Clark appeals from this order. district court also We affirm. A district court lacks authority to grant a motion to reconsider its ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 234 (4th Cir. 2010). Under Goodwyn, Clark had only one opportunity to seek, through a § 3582(c)(2) motion, the benefit of the amendment. See id. at 235-36. the § 3582(c)(2) district court ruled on Clark s Once motion, it lacked authority to grant subsequent relief either by way of a second § 3582(c)(2) motion or a motion for reconsideration of the initial order. Accordingly, we denying Clark s motion. affirm the district court s order We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.