Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07882/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07882-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Hugh Maurice Allen Wade
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Hugh Maurice Allen Wade 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 

Wade 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 

Appeal: 15-7882 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7882 Doc: 12 Filed: 09/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3