Narrative Opinion Summary
Joe Nathan Darby appeals the district court's denial of his motion for reconsideration regarding a prior denial of his request for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). The court affirms the denial, stating that it lacked the authority to consider Darby's motion for reconsideration, referencing United States v. Goodwyn. The court also notes that oral argument is unnecessary as the facts and legal issues are sufficiently documented. Additionally, while the text order included two other orders related to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, Darby’s appeal is limited to the reconsideration of his § 3582(c) motion.
Legal Issues Addressed
Authority to Consider Motion for Reconsideration under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirms that it lacks the authority to consider a motion for reconsideration of a sentence reduction request under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2).
Reasoning: The court affirms the denial, stating that it lacked the authority to consider Darby's motion for reconsideration, referencing United States v. Goodwyn.
Necessity of Oral Argument in Appellate Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determines that oral argument is unnecessary when the facts and legal issues are adequately presented in the documentation.
Reasoning: The court also notes that oral argument is unnecessary as the facts and legal issues are sufficiently documented.
Scope of Appeal in Relation to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) Motionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Darby's appeal is specifically constrained to the reconsideration of his § 3582(c) motion, excluding other orders related to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
Reasoning: Additionally, while the text order included two other orders related to a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion, Darby’s appeal is limited to the reconsideration of his § 3582(c) motion.