United States v. Anthony Wiggins ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6847 Doc: 11 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UNPUBLISHED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: 22-6847 Doc: 11 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 22-6847 Doc: 11 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: 22-6847 Doc: 11 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