US v. Kim Prater

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu-1,1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998475795] [10-7029]

Download PDF
US v. Kim Prater Doc. 0 Case: 10-7029 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/01/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7029 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIM A. PRATER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (1:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu--1; 1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1) Submitted: November 18, 2010 AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 1, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kim A. Prater, Appellant Assistant United States Appellee. Pro Se. Attorney, Steven Randall Ramseyer, Abingdon, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-7029 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/01/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Kim A. Prater appeals the district court's order denying his 18 U.S.C. 3582(c) (2006) motion for a sentence reduction. error. district We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the court. United States v. Prater, Nos. 1:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu-1; 1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. June 18, 2010). Prater also appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of judge appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). prisoner reasonable 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating district that court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief both on procedural the When the district court the prisoner ruling must is grounds, demonstrate that dispositive procedural debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. Case: 10-7029 Document: 10 Date Filed: 12/01/2010 Page: 3 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prater has not made the requisite showing. a certificate with of appealability argument and Accordingly, we deny the appeal. and We legal dismiss the dispense oral because facts contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?