Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07149/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

KELLY EDWARD WADFORD, JR.,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:06-cr-01294-PMD-1; 2:14-cv-00369-PMD)

Submitted: February 19, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7149 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Wadford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dispense with oral

Appeal: 14-7149 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-7149 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3