United States v. David Wiggins , 677 F. App'x 115 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7322
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID ANTHONY WIGGINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:16-cr-00449-RDB-1)
Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 21, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Anthony Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Anthony Wiggins appeals the district court’s order
remanding his state criminal prosecution to state court. We
affirm.
In certain circumstances, a state criminal prosecution may
be removed to federal district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1443
(2012). Such removal is improper absent “a showing that the
defendant is being denied rights guaranteed under a federal law
providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial
equality.” South Carolina v. Moore, 447 F.2d 1067, 1070 (4th
Cir. 1971) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see
also Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966). “If at any
time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (2012).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Wiggins has
not made the requisite showing for removal under § 1443. Thus,
the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
removed prosecution and appropriately remanded the case to state
court. Accordingly, although we grant leave to appeal in forma
pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3