PER CURIAM:
Stephen James Mills appeals the district court’s amended judgment modifying the terms of repayment for his restitution. Mills contends that (1) his waiver of appearance was not knowing or voluntary and he should have been present at resen-tencing, and (2) the sentence was procedurally unreasonable. We affirm.
We conclude that the district court was without jurisdiction to resentence Mills except to the extent that it granted Mills’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) habeas corpus petition and directed that restitution be modified. See 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) (2006); see Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 530 (4th Cir.2010) (district court’s authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is not without limits). We further conclude that given Mills’ signed statement waiving his right to be present at resentencing and that the court granted him the relief he sought in his § 2241 petition, we find no plain error regarding his absence. See United States v. Rhodes, 32 F.3d 867, 874 (4th Cir.1994) (stating standard of review).
We affirm the amended judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.