Edward Wiggins v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-6398 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6398 EDWARD L. WIGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. No. 09-6753 EDWARD L. WIGGINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:07-cv-00211-MHL) Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. June 30, 2009 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward L. Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Edward L. Wiggins seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s * order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and appealability. the subsequent order denying a certificate The orders are not appealable unless a circuit See 28 justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a right. jurists A certificate of appealability will substantial satisfies constitutional of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that any district denial of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wiggins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant informal Wiggins motion to amend his brief, we deny certificates of appealability, deny his motion for bond, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the * The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 3 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately the and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.