Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant’s motion to reconsider his request for sentence reduction under 18 USC section 3582(c)(2), where basis of motion was contention that Dist. Ct. had erred in failing to grant original motion for reduction of sentence that was based on existence of retroactive changes to offense levels for most crack cocaine offenses under Fair Sentencing Act. Defendant’s motion for reconsideration was untimely, since it was filed two days after applicable 14-day period for filing said motions. As such, defendant’s motion was essentially second request for reduction of sentence that Dist. Ct. had no choice but to deny, since defendant had only one chance per retroactive amendment to seek reduction of his sentence.