
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marquis Anthony NELSON, a/k/a Marquis L. Nelson, Defendant-Appellant. Marquis Anthony Nelson, a/k/a Marquis L. Nelson, Petitioner-Appellant, v. United States of America, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-6407, No. 16-6408
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 21, 2016
    Decided: July 22, 2016
    Marquis Anthony Nelson, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia; Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Marquis Anthony Nelson challenges the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying several postjudgment motions. Nelson also argues that the magistrate judge erred in denying his motion for production of certain documents. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Nelson’s motions for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Nelson, Nos. 1:08-cr-00058-1; 1:15-cv-13059, 2016 WL 868344 (S.D.W. Va. Dec. 2, 2015 & Mar. 7, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED 
      
       We previously remanded Case No. 16-6408 for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to supplement the record with an order granting or denying a certificate of appeala-bility. The court denied a certificate of appeal-ability, and Nelson also challenges that order. Upon closer examination, it appears that an order granting or denying a certificate of ap-pealability was unnecessary. The court did not consolidate Nelson’s postjudgment motions and construe them as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. Instead, the court honored Nelson’s request and considered the motions as he presented them.
     