US v. Kareem Currence, No. 12-7505 (4th Cir. 2012)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7505 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Defendant -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court s 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 a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice or issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a 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 a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find U.S. that the claims constitutional 529 by is 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. a debatable 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 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
