USCA4 Appeal: 25-6288 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. GREGORY MCCORKLE, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:97-cr-00249-LMB-1)

Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: June 17, 2025

Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory McCorkle, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6288 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Gregory McCorkle appeals the district court’s order denying his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motion for a sentence reduction based on Amendments 782 and 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines. Having reviewed the record, we discern no reversible error. * Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v. McCorkle, No. 1:97-cr-00249-LMB-1 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2025). 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

* On appeal, McCorkle does not challenge the district court’s conclusion that he is ineligible for relief under Amendment 821. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). McCorkle does challenge, however, the district court’s ruling that Amendment 782 does not lower his Guidelines range. Although we agree with the district court’s ruling, our reasoning differs. See Moore v. Frazier, 941 F.3d 717, 725 (4th Cir. 2019) (explaining that we may affirm the district court’s decision “on any ground apparent on the record”). That is, we conclude that Amendment 782 does not impact McCorkle’s Guidelines range because the offense level for his continuing criminal enterprise conviction ultimately was not premised on the quantity of drugs attributable to him but rather the offense level for other offenses that did not involve drugs that were grouped with that offense (that is, the offenses of interstate murder for hire and attempted murder of a witness).