
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Reverend James Cornell CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 14-10158
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Dec. 2, 2014.
    James Wesley Hendrix, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Dallas, TX, Ann Cruce Roberts, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lubbock, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Reverend James Cornell Clark, Lexington, KY, pro se.
    Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Reverend James Cornell Clark, federal prisoner # 13288-057, filed an 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion in the district court, seeking a reduction in the 235-month sentence that was imposed following his convictions on multiple counts of mail fraud, making false statements or entries generally, possession of false papers to defraud the United States, and money laundering. The district court denied the motion, and Clark now appeals.

Clark argues here, as he did m the district court, that his sentence should be reduced because his guidelines sentencing range was increased by enhancements triggered by judicially found facts in violation of Alleyne v. United States, — U.S. -, 133 S.Ct. 2151, 2163, 186 L.Ed.2d 314 (2013). The district court properly denied Clark’s motion because his Alleyne-based challenge to his sentence is beyond the scope of § 3582(c)(2). See United States v. Hernandez, 645 F.3d 709, 712 (5th Cir.2011); United States v. Whitebird, 55 F.3d 1007, 1011 (5th Cir.1995). In addition to his Alleyne-based sentencing challenge, Clark raises in his appellate brief numerous other challenges to his underlying convictions and sentence, none of which are based on any amendments to the Sentencing Guidelines. Because these other challenges are raised for the first time in Clark’s appellate brief, we decline to consider them. See United States v. Pardue, 36 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir.1994).

The Government moves for the dismissal of Clark’s newly • raised arguments, for summary affirmance, and, alternatively, for an extension of time for filing an appellate brief. We deny each of those motions and affirm the district court’s order denying relief under § 3582(c)(2).

AFFIRMED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
     