
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Howard Charles HUDSON, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendan—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Howard Charles Hudson, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant—Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Howard Charles Hudson, a/k/a Star, a/k/a Boss, Defendant—Appellant.
    Nos. 07-6825, 07-6948, 07-7102.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Sept. 13, 2007.
    Decided: Sept. 19, 2007.
    Howard Charles Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

After the district court granted Howard Charles Hudson’s 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000) motion and reduced his sentence from life in prison to 360 months, Hudson filed a Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(a) motion asserting that district court should have applied the Sentencing Guidelines as advisory under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 125 S.Ct. 738, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005), and that his sentence should have been based on an offense level of twelve due to the drug quantity stated in the indictment. The district court denied the Rule 35(a) motion and also denied Hudson’s motion for reconsideration of that order. He now appeals from the orders granting his motion for a reduction in sentence, denying his Rule 35(a) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record on appeal and find no abuse of discretion and no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Hudson, No. 2:93-cr-00156 (E.D. Va. filed May 16, 2007 & entered May 17, 2006; June 6, 2007; filed June 27, 2007 & entered June 28, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.  