US v. Janeek Wiggan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 2:00-cr-00005-1, 2:12-cv-04554. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762197]. Mailed to: J. Wiggan. [15-7462]

Appeal: 15-7462

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7462

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JANEEK WIGGAN,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston.
John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:00-cr-00005-1; 2:12-cv-04554)

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Janeek Wiggan, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7462

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Janeek Wiggan seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
Wiggan’s

28

appealable

U.S.C.
unless

§ 2255
a

(2012)

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

motion.

justice

The

or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

U.S.

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

a

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Wiggan has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-7462

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 02/25/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3