Opinion
No. 12-7505
12-27-2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KAREEM JAMAL CURRENCE, Defendant - Appellant.
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UNPUBLISHED
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) 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Jamal Currence seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. 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." 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 (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 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