Court Opinion

ID: 9961884
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-20 21:00:29.75348+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:14.176562
License: Public Domain

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                                            UNPUBLISHED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        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                                                       2