Norvell Webster Crump appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a reduction to his sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Crump, Nos. CR-94-101; CA-01-969 (S.D.W.Va. Oct. 21, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and *182 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED.