Court Opinion

ID: 9905144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-28 21:01:02.714757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:03.944912
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184     Doc: 9         Filed: 11/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 4

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6847

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTHONY EUGENE WIGGINS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

                                              No. 23-6184

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        ANTHONY EUGENE WIGGINS,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        George L. Russell, III, District Judge. (1:19-cr-00142-GLR-1; 1:21-cv-02844-GLR)

        Submitted: November 21, 2023                               Decided: November 27, 2023
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184      Doc: 9        Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 4

        Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Anthony Eugene Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184      Doc: 9         Filed: 11/27/2023      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               In these consolidated cases, Anthony Eugene Wiggins seeks to appeal the district

        court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and his motion for

        reconsideration. With respect to Appeal No. 22-6847, this court may exercise jurisdiction

        only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

        U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541,

        545-46 (1949). Because Wiggins filed his first notice of appeal before the district court

        adjudicated his § 2255 motion, we conclude that Wiggins did not appeal a final order or an

        appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We therefore dismiss Appeal No. 22-6847 for

        lack of jurisdiction and deny Wiggins’ motion to appoint counsel.

               However, with respect to Appeal No. 23-6184, Wiggins timely appealed the district

        court’s orders denying relief in this § 2255 proceeding. The orders are not appealable

        unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

        § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court

        denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

        reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims

        debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing

        Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

                                                     3
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184      Doc: 9        Filed: 11/27/2023     Pg: 4 of 4

              We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wiggins has not

        made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

        dismiss the appeal in No. 23-6184. 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

                                                    4