Mark Wedding v. United States , 627 F. App'x 215 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7165
MARK STROUD WEDDING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00533-MR; 3:07-cr-00286-MR-1)
Submitted: December 17, 2015 Decided: December 22, 2015
Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Mark Stroud Wedding, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford,
Cortney Randall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte,
North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States
Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mark Stroud Wedding seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, his
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and his writs of coram nobis
and audita querela. The part of the order denying the § 2255
motion is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Wedding has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal in
part.
2
We also conclude that Wedding is not entitled to relief
under § 2441 or under either a writ of coram nobis or a writ of
audita querela. Accordingly, we affirm that part of the
district court’s order. 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.
DISMISSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
3