Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Kareem Currence, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Kareem Jamal Currence sought to appeal a district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The appellate court denied Currence's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the appellate court dismissed Currence's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2012-12-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 12-7505

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Kareem Jamal Currence sought to appeal a district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The appellate court denied Currence's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the appellate court dismissed Currence's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    3 views3 pages

    United States v. Kareem Currence, 4th Cir. (2012)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Kareem Jamal Currence sought to appeal a district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 motion as successive and unauthorized. The appellate court denied Currence's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As such, the appellate court dismissed Currence's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 12-7505

    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, District
    Judge. (3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1; 3:08-cv-00163-JRS)

    Submitted:

    December 20, 2012

    Decided:

    December 27, 2012

    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kareem Jamal Currence, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V,


    WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, Charles Everett James, Jr.,
    Chief Deputy Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kareem
    courts

    order

    Jamal

    Currence

    dismissing

    his

    seeks

    28

    to

    appeal

    U.S.C.A.

    the

    2255

    district

    (West

    Supp.

    2012) motion as successive and unauthorized.

    The order is not

    appealable

    judge

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    or

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    court's

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    473,

    484

    (2000); see MillerEl v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 33638 (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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    Slack, 529 U.S.

    at 48485.
    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

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like