US v. Kareem Currence

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999071303-2] Originating case number: 3:05-cr-00231-JRS-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999138107]. Mailed to: Kareem Currence. [13-6283]

Appeal: 13-6283

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Appeal: 13-6283

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

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

Appeal: 13-6283

Doc: 9

Filed: 06/26/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

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