Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Timothy Hoard appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to reduce his sentence. Hoard charges that the district court erred by imposing a consecutive sentence because when his prior state sentence was imposed, the state court judge ordered that it be served concurrently with his future federal sentence. After reviewing the record, we find that we are without jurisdiction to consider Hoard’s appeal. See 18 U.S.C. § 3742(a) (2012) (allowing appeals only from sentences “imposed in violation of law”); see also United States v. Davis, 679 F.3d 190, 194 (4th Cir. 2012) (holding that § 3742(a)(1) “does not give this Court jurisdiction to review any part of a discretionary sentencing decision”). Accordingly, we dismiss Hoard’s appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional-process.

DISMISSED.