US v. Steven Cureton

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:07-cr-00061-FDW-14,3:11-cv-00486-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999054377]. Mailed to: Cureton. [12-8114]

Appeal: 12-8114

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/01/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-8114

Doc: 8

Filed: 03/01/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

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

Appeal: 12-8114

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 03/01/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3