US v. David Wiggins


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999955697-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cr-00449-RDB-1. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000026522]. Mailed to: Appellant. [16-7322]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-7322 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7322 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff – Appellee, v. DAVID ANTHONY WIGGINS, Defendant -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 Decided: DUNCAN, February 21, 2017 Circuit Judge, and Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-7322 Doc: 14 Filed: 02/21/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 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 Appeal: 16-7322 Doc: 14 adequately Filed: 02/21/2017 presented in the Pg: 3 of 3 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?