United States v. Steven Prentice

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: April 19, 2024
• Docket: 23-7126
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7126 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-7126

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

STEVEN D. PRENTICE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, Chief District Judge. (1:01-cr-00031-CCE-1)

Submitted: April 18, 2024 Decided: April 19, 2024

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven Dixon Prentice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7126 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/19/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Steven D. Prentice appeals the district court’s omnibus order denying, in relevant

part, Prentice’s two petitions for a writ of error coram nobis. Upon review of the record,

we are satisfied that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petitions,

see United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191, 196-97 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of

review and explaining requirements for coram nobis relief), because there is no basis in the

law for Prentice’s “actual innocence” argument, e.g., United States v. Miltier, 882 F.3d 81,

89-90 (4th Cir. 2018) (explaining that “[i]t is well settled that Congress has the authority

to regulate purely intrastate activities, as long as a rational basis exists for concluding that

a regulated activity sufficiently affects interstate commerce,” and ruling “that the intrastate

receipt, production, and possession of child pornography” has the requisite “substantial

effect on the interstate movement of child pornography” (internal quotation marks and

brackets omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. United States v.

Prentice, No. 1:01-cr-00031-CCE-1 (M.D.N.C. Oct. 24, 2023).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED