US v. Kim Prater, No. 10-7029 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7029 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KIM A. PRATER, Defendant - Appellant.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 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. AGEE, Circuit Decided: Judges, and December 1, 2010 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Attorney, Steven Randall Ramseyer, Abingdon, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Nos. Prater, 1:03-cr-00075-jpj-mfu-1; 1:01-cr-00018-jpj-1 (W.D. Va. June 18, 2010). Prater also appeals the § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. unless a circuit appealability. justice or denial of his 28 U.S.C.A. The order is not appealable judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the 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 demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record Prater has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and and that Accordingly, we deny dismiss because conclude the the appeal. facts and We legal 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
