US v. Frank Esquivel, No. 16-6834 (4th Cir. 2016)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6834 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. FRANK ESQUIVEL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cr-00026-F-1) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 28, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frank Esquivel, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Frank Esquivel appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of sentence and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find that the district court did not abuse its considerable § 3582(c)(2) motion. § 3582(c)(2) relief discretion Accordingly, on the in we reasoning denying affirm of the Esquivel’s the denial district of court. United States v. Esquivel, No. 5:05-cr-00026-F-1 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 13, 2016). Because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Esquivel’s motion for reconsideration, we affirm the denial of that order. 233, 234 (4th Cir. See United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 2010) (holding that district court lacks authority to grant motion to reconsider ruling on § 3582(c)(2) motion). legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. 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.