Mark English appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his motion to reduce his criminal sentence. To the extent that English’s motion was cognizable in this post-sentencing proceeding, and to the extent the district court’s rulings are renewable, we conclude that the district court’s denial of relief was proper, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying English’s motion to reconsider. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. The government’s motions to dismiss the appeal as untimely, and to strike a portion of the record, are denied.