US v. Charles Wade, No. 13-7230 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7230 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. CHARLES W. WADE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Chief District Judge. (8:10-cr-00574-DKC-1; 8:12-cv-02442-DKC) Submitted: November 27, 2013 Decided: January 10, 2014 Before KEENAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles W. Wade, Appellant Pro Se. Hans Miller, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Paul Nitze, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles W. Wade seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motions for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. As to Wade s challenge to the denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) motions, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the denial for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Wade, No. 8:10-cr-00574-DKC-1 (D. Md. June 19, 2013). Wade may not appeal the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 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 portion of Wade s appeal challenging denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
