US v. David Wiggins

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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