
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelvin FREEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 11-7440.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 24, 2012.
    Decided: May 7, 2012.
    Kelvin Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Sharon Burnham, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Ronald Mitchell Huber, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Freeman appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) motion for reduction of sentence based on Amendment 750 to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2011). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Freeman correctly notes that the district court’s consideration of his motion under Amendment 750 was premature as the amendment had not yet gone into effect at the time the court entered the order. However, because Amendment 750 is now in effect and the district court did not err in concluding that Freeman does not qualify for a sentence reduction under Amendment 750, this argument is moot. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Freeman, No. 3:08-cr-00022-NKM-1 (W.D.Va. Oct. 17, 2011). We further deny Freeman’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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. 
      
      
         To the extent Freeman relied on Amendment 706 to the Guidelines in his § 3582(c)(2) motion, that amendment was already taken into consideration at his sentencing, which took place after the amendment's effective date of November 1, 2007.
     