Michelle Marie Holt filed a motion for compassionate release, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A), in the district court. The court denied her motion on July 7, 2020. On October 5, Holt filed an “expedited motion for compassionate release.” The court construed her motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration of its July 7 order, and, after the court denied the motion, Holt appealed. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
On appeal, Holt asserts that the district court erred in construing her motion as a motion for reconsideration of its July 7 order rather than a renewed motion for compassionate release. We agree. “[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not apply to motions under § 3582,” because § 3582 motions are “criminal in nature.” United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 235 n.* (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, the court erred in construing Holts motion under a rule of civil procedure. And there is no prohibition against successive § 3582(c)(1)(A) motions, so the district court could properly have considered the October 5 motion as a new request for compassionate release.
However, we conclude that the error did not prejudice Holt. Holts October 5 motion failed to demonstrate any change in Holts situation that could have altered the courts reasons for denying her initial motion.
We therefore affirm the district courts order and deny Holts motions for default judgment and miscellaneous relief. 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
PER CURIAM:
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.