United States v. Kareem Currence ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6537
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1; 3:14-cv-00496-JRS)
Submitted: July 21, 2015 Decided: July 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kareem Jamal Currence, Appellant Pro Se. Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kareem Jamal Currence seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders finding Currence’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion to be
successive and unauthorized and dismissing it for lack of
jurisdiction, and denying Currence’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating
that reasonable jurists would find that the district 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). When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate
both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that
the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a
constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Currence has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3