US v. Steven Cureton, No. 14-7100 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7100 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. STEVEN JERMONTE CURETON, a/k/a Rollo,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, Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-14; 3:14-cv-00281-FDW) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Steven Jermonte Cureton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Steven Jermonte Cureton seeks to appeal the district court s order motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues denying a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent relief a on of 28 U.S.C. § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. his showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 Cureton has not made the requisite showing. The district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Cureton s motion to vacate because it was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion. In the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255 2 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal 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.
