United States v. David Wiggins

677 F. App'x 115
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 21, 2017
Docket16-7322
StatusUnpublished

This text of 677 F. App'x 115 (United States v. David Wiggins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. David Wiggins, 677 F. App'x 115 (4th Cir. 2017).

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. See 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (2012). Such removal is improper absent “a showing that the defendant is being denied *116 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, 86 S.Ct. 1783, 16 L.Ed.2d 925 (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 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Georgia v. Rachel
384 U.S. 780 (Supreme Court, 1966)
The State of South Carolina v. James Edward Moore
447 F.2d 1067 (Fourth Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
677 F. App'x 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-wiggins-ca4-2017.