
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryan Lamont GRIMES, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 16-7643
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2017
    Decided: June 6, 2017
    Bryan Lamont Grimes, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Westley Haynie, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee,
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Bryan Lamont Grimes appeals the district court’s orders denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction under Sentencing Guidelines Amendment 782, denying his motion for reconsideration, and denying another post-judgment motion. We affirm.

While a district court lacks authority to reconsider a ruling on a § 3582(c)(2) motion, “this prohibition [is] non-jurisdictional, and thus waived when the government fail[s] to assert it below.” United States v. May, 855 F.3d 271, 274 (4th Cir. 2017). Here, “[b]eeause the government failed to raise this non-jurisdictional limitation below, it is waived on appeal.” Id. at 275. We therefore analyze Grimes’ § 3582(c)(2) motion and motion for reconsideration together.

We review for abuse of discretion a district court’s decision whether to reduce a sentence under § 3582(c)(2) and review de novo a district court’s conclusion on the scope of its legal authority under that provision. United States v. Muldrow, 844 F.3d 434, 437 (4th Cir. 2016). Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Grimes’ § 3582(c)(2) motion or motion for reconsideration based on the 18 U.S.C. § 3558(a) (2012) factors, and the fact that Grimes’ current sentence falls within the Guidelines range as amended by Amendment 782. Further, we find no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Grimes’ post-judgment motion.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argqment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED  