Sakima Iban Salih El Bey appeals the district court’s order remanding his case to the state court from which it was removed. Generally, “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (2006). Although this section could be read expansively to apply to all remand orders, the Supreme Court has held that it must be read in conjunction with 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2006). Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12, 116 S.Ct. 1712, 135 L.Ed.2d 1 (1996).

In sua sponte remanding El Bey’s case to state court, the district court found that there was no legitimate jurisdictional basis *224 for the removal of his pending state criminal case to federal court. Because the remand order is based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it falls within the scope of § 1447(c) and is therefore not renewable. See § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Ellenburg v. Spartan Motors Chassis, Inc., 519 F.3d 192, 196 (4th Cir. 2008) (holding that a remand order based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction, whether sua sponte or not, falls under § 1447(c) and is not renewable).

Accordingly, we deny El Bey’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.