Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07313/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07313-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leon Prater
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7313

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

LEON PRATER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:10-cr-00041-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 5, 2015

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Prater, Appellant Pro Se. John Castle Parr, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7313 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Leon Prater appeals the district court’s order denying 

his request for approval to pursue a sentence reduction under 

18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012). In denying Prater’s request, the 

court concluded that Prater was not eligible for a sentence 

reduction under Amendment 750 because he was sentenced as a 

career offender. Prater’s sentence, however, was not based on 

his status as a career offender but was the sentence agreed to 

by the parties in the binding plea agreement. See Fed. R. Crim. 

P. 11(c)(1)(C). Nevertheless, we conclude that Prater was not 

entitled to a sentence reduction and we therefore affirm the 

court’s judgment.

Prater also appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion for reconsideration. Although we conclude that the 

court was without authority to consider the motion on the 

merits, United States v. Goodwyn, 596 F.3d 233, 236 (4th Cir. 

2010), we affirm the denial of the motion.

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 

Appeal: 14-7313 Doc: 5 Filed: 02/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 2