UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 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.
2
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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3