Mark Wedding v. US

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00533-MR,3:07-cr-00286-MR-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999723189]. Mailed to: Mark Wedding. [15-7165]

Appeal: 15-7165

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7165

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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.
motion
issues

is

not

a

The part of the order denying the § 2255

appealable

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

unless
of

circuit

justice

appealability.

or

28

judge
U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

a

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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

Appeal: 15-7165

Doc: 7

Filed: 12/22/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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,

district court’s order.

we

affirm

that

part

of

the

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