
    Mark Stroud WEDDING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-7165.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Dec. 17, 2015.
    Decided: Dec. 22, 2015.
    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, Ashe-ville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed in part, affirmed in part by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeal-ability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

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.

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.  