US v. Hugh Wade


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:78-cr-00442-JKB-1,1:15-cv-03373-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999930670]. Mailed to: Hugh Maurice Allen Wade. [15-7882]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-7882 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7882 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. HUGH MAURICE ALLEN WADE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:78-cr-00442-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-03373-JKB) Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 16, 2016 Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh Maurice Allen Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Sujit Raman, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-7882 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Hugh Maurice Allen 28 U.S.C. the district The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a of § 2255 appealability. 28 (2012) U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” his appeal motion. a on to order issues relief seeks court’s judge denying Wade 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 Wade has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny a the the appeal. facts and We legal Appeal: 15-7882 Doc: 12 contentions are Filed: 09/16/2016 adequately Pg: 3 of 3 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?