
    UNITED STATES of America v. Dwayne Michael CARTER, Appellant.
    No. 12-4561.
    United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
    Submitted for Possible Dismissal Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) or
    Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 April 25, 2013.
    Opinion Filed April 30, 2013.
    Rebecca R. Haywood, Esq., Michael L. Ivory, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Pittsburgh, PA, for United States of America.
    Dwayne Michael Carter, San Pedro, CA, pro se.
    Before: FUENTES, FISHER and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges.
   OPINION

PER CURIAM.

In 2010, Dwayne Michael Carter pled guilty in the District Court to one count of possession with intent to distribute less than 500 grams of cocaine and one count of possession with intent to distribute less than 100 kilograms of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C), as well as one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,- in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l)(A)(i). Carter was sentenced to a sixty-six month aggregate term of imprisonment followed by five years of supervised release. In October 2012, Carter filed a motion under to reduce the term of supervised release. The District Court denied Carter’s motion without discussion, and he appeals.

Title 18 United States Code Section 3583 grants authority to courts to include terms of supervised release when sentencing criminal defendants. 18 U.S.C. § 3583(a). Section 3583(e) provides that a court may revoke, extend, terminate, or modify such a term of supervised release. Id. § 3583(e)(l)-(4). More specifically, and relevant here § 3583(e)(1) permits a court to reduce the term of a defendant’s supervised release after that defendant has completed one year of his or her supervised release. Id. § 3583(e)(1). Section 3583(e)(2) also permits courts to “extend a term of supervised release ... at any time prior to the expiration or termination of the term of supervised release.” Id. § 3583(e)(2). Thus, courts are permitted to reduce terms of supervised release only under the circumstances set forth in § 3583(e)(1). Because Carter is still incarcerated and has not completed one year of his supervised release, his motion was premature. Carter’s arguments regarding § 3583(e)(2) are without merit; although that provision also permits courts to modify the conditions of supervised release at any time, it permits only extensions of the terms of supervised release, and Carter seeks a reduction. Because Carter was ineligible for relief under 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e) at the time he filed his motion, the District Court correctly denied it. This appeal presents no substantial question, and we will summarily affirm. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 
      
      . We have jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
     
      
      . We take no position as to whether any motion to reduce the term of supervised release filed after Carter has served one year of supervised release would falls within the scope of any appellate waiver included in his plea. See United States v. Wilson, 707 F.3d 412, 415 n. 2 (3d Cir.2013).
     