US v. Steven Cureton, No. 12-8114 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8114 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEVEN JERMONTE CURETON, a/k/a Rollo, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-14; 3:11-cv-00486-FDW) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Jermonte Cureton, Appellant Assistant United States Attorney, Dana Owen Washington, Kevin Zolot, ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Asheville, North Carolina; OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Jermonte Cureton seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this reasonable jurists would assessment of constitutional wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) the standard find by that demonstrating the claims district is that court s debatable or 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 Cureton 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