The Government appealed and we vacated the new sentence, holding that the district court lacked the authority to grant Mann's motion for reconsideration. United States v. Mann, 373 Fed.Appx. 350 (4th Cir.2010), cert. granted and judgment vacated,––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1598, 179 L.Ed.2d 496 (2011). On remand from the Supreme Court, we again held that the district court lacked this authority.

PER CURIAM: This case returns to us on remand after the Supreme Court granted Robert Mann's petition for certiorari, vacated our judgment in United States v. Mann, 373 Fed. Appx. 350 (4th Cir. 2010), and remanded for our consideration in light ofHenderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. ___ (2011). We previously held that 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) deprives the district court of jurisdiction to grant a motion to reconsider the denial of a motion for a sentence reduction six months after denying the original motion.

United States v. Curry, 2010 WL 4259388 (7th Cir. 2010), citingUnited States v. Boyd, 591 F.3d 953, 956 (7th Cir. 2010). Even if this motion were construed as a motion to reconsider the previous ruling, this Court may not grant relief. United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 2010), certiorari denied 130 S.Ct. 3530, 78 USLW 3763 (2010) (second motion pursuant to § 3582(c) based on same guideline amendment may not be granted even if considered motion to reconsider); accord, United States v. Mann, 373 Fed.Appx. 350 (4th Cir. 2010). IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) Requesting Sentence Reduction for Crack Cocaine Offenses, Relevant to Retroactive Amendment 706 [Doc. 646] is hereby DENIED.