US v. Anthony Wiggins, No. 22-6847 (4th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6847 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ANTHONY EUGENE WIGGINS, Defendant -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 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In these consolidated cases, Anthony Eugene Wiggins seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.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 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
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.
