Mark Wedding v. US, No. 15-7165 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7165 MARK STROUD WEDDING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent -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 Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
