United States of America v. Steven D. Prentice

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --