Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Julius Adair Wiley appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, construing his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for a sentence reduction as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing that motion as second or successive. Although the district court should not have construed Wiley’s motion as one arising under § 2255, we nevertheless agree with the court’s alternative reasoning that Wiley is not entitled to relief under § 3582(c)(2) because the Sentencing Commission has not authorized ’ resentencing under Amendment 794 to the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 1B1.10(a)(1), (d) (2016); United States v. McHan, 386 F.3d 620, 622 (4th Cir. 2004). We therefore affirm the denial of relief on that basis. 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.

AFFIRMED