US v. Kareem Currence, No. 13-6283 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6283 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Defendant -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) Submitted: June 20, 2013 Decided: June 26, 2013 Before DUNCAN and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. * Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. * The opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d) (2006). PER CURIAM: Kareem Jamal Currence, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order construing his petition for a writ of audita querela as a successive and U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. unauthorized Currence has also filed a motion for a transcript at Government expense. district justice court s or order issues a judge is not appealable certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). of 28 unless a The circuit appealability. 28 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) (2006). 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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, deny Currence s motion 2 for a transcript at Government expense, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
