United States v. Wade ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 2 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 04-2122
TAIKECHA WADE, (D.C. Nos. CIV-04-113 MCA/LCS
and CR-02-886 MCA)
Defendant-Appellant. (D. New Mexico)
ORDER*
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
Taikecha Wade, a federal prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's dismissal of her 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. We deny the request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.
Issuance of a COA is jurisdictional. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). A COA can issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327.
After careful review of all of the filings and the record on appeal, we conclude the
requirements for issuance of a COA have not been met.
Wade pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute 100 kilograms or more
of a mixture containing a detectable amount of marijuana, and was sentenced to 60
months’ imprisonment. She did not file a direct appeal. Wade filed her § 2255 motion on
February 3, 2004, alleging an “unconstitutional search and seizure,” “[v]iolation of the
Second Stop Law,” and “[u]nlawful traffic stop.” ROA, Doc. 1 at 4. The district court
dismissed the action sua sponte, finding Wade’s claims were barred. The court found her
entry of an unconditional guilty plea waived all nonjurisdictional defenses, citing United
States v. Kunzman, 125 F.3d 1363, 1365 (10th Cir. 1997). Further, the district court
concluded her claims were procedurally barred because she did not raise them on direct
appeal, citing United States v. Cox, 83 F.3d 336, 341 (10th Cir. 1996). We agree with the
district court’s conclusions.
We DENY the request for a COA and DISMISS the appeal for substantially the
same reasons stated by the district court in its order filed April 27, 2004.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
2