US v. David Wiggins, No. 16-7322 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID ANTHONY WIGGINS, Defendant -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 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: DUNCAN, February 21, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. (2012). See 28 U.S.C. § 1443 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

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.