Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 16 views

    Mark Wedding v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed part of the appeal, which involved the denial of a Section 2255 motion, because the appellant did not obtain a certificate of appealability as required. The court affirmed the denial of relief under Section 2241 and denial of writs of coram nobis and audita querela. The court concluded the appellant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability or demonstrate entitlement to relief under the other claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Mark Wedding v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    16 views3 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed part of the appeal, which involved the denial of a Section 2255 motion, because the appellant did not obtain a certificate of appealability as required. The court affirmed the denial of relief under Section 2241 and denial of writs of coram nobis and audita querela. The court concluded the appellant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability or demonstrate entitlement to relief under the other claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2015-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-7165

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed part of the appeal, which involved the denial of a Section 2255 motion, because the appellant did not obtain a certificate of appealability as required. The court affirmed the denial of relief under Section 2241 and denial of writs of coram nobis and audita querela. The court concluded the appellant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability or demonstrate entitlement to relief under the other claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    16 views3 pages

    Mark Wedding v. United States, 4th Cir. (2015)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. The court dismissed part of the appeal, which involved the denial of a Section 2255 motion, because the appellant did not obtain a certificate of appealability as required. The court affirmed the denial of relief under Section 2241 and denial of writs of coram nobis and audita querela. The court concluded the appellant did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability or demonstrate entitlement to relief under the other claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    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.

    PER CURIAM:
    Mark Stroud Wedding seeks to appeal the district courts
    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

    The part of the order denying the 2255

    appealable

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
    issue

    absent

    unless
    of

    circuit

    justice

    appealability.

    or

    28

    judge
    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts 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 courts 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

    You might also like