Opinion
No. 19-6846
10-01-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID R. SPECYALSKI, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
David R. Specyalski, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Bruce H. Hendricks, District Judge. (6:16-cr-00774-BHH-1) Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David R. Specyalski, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
David R. Specyalski, Jr., appeals the district court's text order denying his motion for a sentence reduction. Initially, we conclude that Specyalski brought this motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and that the motion should not be construed as arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). Cf. Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375, 383 (2003) (holding that district court must warn pro se litigant of intent to recharacterize pleading as § 2255 motion, explain procedural consequences, and provide litigant opportunity to respond). A defendant is eligible for a sentence reduction under § 3582(c)(2) only if his Sentencing Guidelines range has been lowered by the Sentencing Commission. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2). Because Specyalski did not establish that he is eligible for relief under that criterion, the court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion. See United States v. Martin, 916 F.3d 389, 395 (4th Cir. 2019). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. United States v. Specyalski, No. 6:16-cr-00774-BHH-1 (D.S.C. June 4, 2019). We deny Specyalski's motion for a remedy. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED