UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7505

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; 3:08-cv-00163-JRS)

Submitted: December 20, 2012 Decided: December 27, 2012

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

(West Supp.

2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell,

, 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3