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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7029 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIM A. PRATER, Defendant - Appellant.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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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