PER CURIAM.
William Edward Hines appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion to reduce his sentence under Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b). We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion when it granted the Government’s Rule 35(b) motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. See United States v. Pridgen, 64 F.3d 147, 149-50 (4th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court. We also deny Hines’s motion for bond. 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