Search Warrant Affidavit - United States v. Tracy and Carolyn Wade

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 243 · 2025-03-27 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order by U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham in United States of America v. Carolyn Denise Wade and Tracy D. Wade, Case No. 23-60173-CR-WILLIAMS/GRAHAM, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, entered on the docket March 27, 2025 as Document 243. It rules on Carolyn Denise Wade's motion under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal (ECF No. 240). The court finds that she made a sufficient showing that the appeal is taken in good faith but did not show an inability to pay fees and costs. It finds her part-time income sufficient to cover the $600.00 filing fee and notes that she will have access to the trial transcript once co-defendant Tracy D. Wade orders it. The motion is denied.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
MIAMI DIVISION 
Case No. 23-60173-CR-WILLIAMS/GRAHAM 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
vs. 
CAROLYN DENISE WADE and 
TRACYD. WADE 
Defendants. 
I 
--------
ORDER 
THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Defendant Carolyn Denise Wade's Motion 
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal. (ECF 
No. 240). 
Defendant Carolyn Denise Wade ("Ms. Wade") seeks, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate 
Procedure 24(a)( l ), to be declared indigent for appellate purposes, including the filing fee and 
transcription of necessary proceedings including the trial. (ECF No. 240). According to her motion, 
Ms. Wade and her husband and co-defendant, Tracy D. Wade, retained counsel to file their 
respective appeals. Counsel represents that Mr. and Ms. Wade are "in different financial situations 
and Mr. Wade is not seeking to proceed in forma pauperis. Id. Specifically, Ms. Wade has "minimal 
income from part-time employment ... significant debts, including a mortgage balance of 
approximately $585,000 and credit card debt of approximately $44,000 ... no excess disposable 
income" and her living expenses are met through assistance from Mr. Wade. Id. Additionally, Ms. 
Wade's legal fees in this case, including for appellate counsel, have been paid by Mr. Wade, not Ms. 
Wade . Id. 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 243   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2025   Page 1 of 3

Further, counsel asserts that, "on appeal Ms. Wade expects to raise issues related to the 
sufficiency of the evidence that she personally or knowingly committed the crimes charged, and 
potentially other issues to be identified by [ ] counsel after reviewing the transcripts and other 
records in this case." Id. In support of her motion, Ms. Wade attached a Financial Affidavit which 
complies with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24(a)( 1 ). (ECF 
o. 241-1 ). 
Applications to appeal in forma pauperis are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Federal Rule 
of Appellate Procedure 24. A federal court may authorize a party to proceed in forma pauperis upon 
an affidavit of indigency. 28 U.S.C. § l 915(a); see Fed. R. App. P. 24(a)(l). Specifically, Rule 24 
requires the party to state the issues that the party intends to present on appeal, an entitlement to 
redress, and show their inability to pay or to give security for fees and costs. Fed. R. App. P. 
24(a)(l). 
While Ms. Wade has not sufficiently identified the issues she intends to argue on appeal, as is 
required; see McKinsey v. Cain, 2011 WL 2945812 (E.D. La. July 15, 20 l l)(denying petitioner IFP 
status where the "motion and notice of appeal contain no indication of the issues that [petitioner] 
intend[ ed] to present on appeal"); Smith v. Sch. Bd. of Brevard Cty. , 2010 WL 2026071 (M.D. Fla. 
May 20, 2010)( denying petition to proceed IFP because motion and notice of appeal failed to 
identify legal issues petitioner would advance on appeal), Ms. Wade has made a sufficient showing 
that her appeal is taken in good faith. However, Ms. Wade fails to show her inability to pay or to 
give security for fees and costs. 
While Ms. Wade's financial affidavit reflects monthly expenses of $2,400 for credit cards 
and $300 for groceries, resulting in $0 in her bank account after monthly expenses, her Presentence 
2 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 243   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2025   Page 2 of 3

Investigation Report ("PSR") states a total net worth of $83,490. Additionally, her husband and co-
defendant, is responsible for her monthly living expenses, including the mortgage and credit card 
payments. As such, the Court does not consider these expenses in determining Ms. Wades indigency 
and ability to pay the filling fee. The Court therefore finds that Ms. Wade's monthly income of 
$1,200 from her part-time employment is sufficient to cover the required $600.00 filing fee. 
Moreover, because co-defendant Mr. Wade is not indigent and is represented by the same 
counsel for appeal, Ms. Wade will have access to the trial transcript once it is ordered by Mr. Wade. 
Accordingly, it is hereby 
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendant Carolyn Denise Wade's Motion Pursuant to 
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 24 to Proceed in Forma Pauperis on Appeal (ECF No. 240) is 
DENIED. 
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 27th day of March 2025. 
£)~ 
DONALD L. GRAHAM 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
cc: All parties 
3 
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW   Document 243   Entered on FLSD Docket 03/27/2025   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.243.0.pdf

Size

183,434 bytes

SHA-256

2b71cef558aa8cfcaae10a1d7a6afc128b042055ed5722251c0ab13b202503e2

Our copy

gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.243.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)