United States v. Hyde — Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Hyde’s appeal

Case
United States of America v. Mason White Hyde
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Judge
WILKINSON (Ronald Reagan, 1984); RICHARDSON (Donald Trump, 2018)
Date Decided
July 21, 2026
Docket No.
26-6106
Topics
Habeas Corpus, Coram Nobis, Successive Petitions, Certificate of Appealability
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Mason White Hyde filed a petition for a writ of coram nobis challenging his federal conviction. The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina accepted a magistrate judge’s recommendation and construed the petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The district court dismissed the motion as successive and unauthorized. Hyde, proceeding without counsel, appealed and moved for appointment of counsel.

The Court’s Holding

In an unpublished per curiam opinion, the Fourth Circuit held that Hyde could not appeal without a certificate of appealability. Because the district court dismissed his motion on procedural grounds, Hyde had to show both that the procedural ruling was debatable and that his motion stated a debatable claim that a constitutional right had been denied.

After independently reviewing the record, the court concluded that Hyde had not made the required showing. It therefore denied a certificate of appealability, dismissed the appeal, and denied Hyde’s motion for appointment of counsel. The court also dispensed with oral argument.

Key Takeaways

  • A district court’s dismissal of a construed § 2255 motion cannot be appealed unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
  • When relief is denied on procedural grounds, the appellant must show that both the procedural ruling and the underlying constitutional claim are debatable.
  • The Fourth Circuit found Hyde’s showing insufficient, denied a certificate of appealability, and dismissed the appeal.

Why It Matters

The decision illustrates that labeling a collateral challenge as a coram nobis petition does not prevent a court from treating it as a § 2255 motion when its substance warrants that treatment. Once characterized as a successive § 2255 motion, the challenge is subject to statutory authorization requirements.

It also underscores the dual showing required to obtain appellate review after a procedural dismissal: the prisoner must present a debatable procedural issue and a debatable constitutional claim.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top