USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 4

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated cases, Anthony Eugene Wiggins seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his

motion and his motion for

reconsideration. With respect to Appeal No. 22-6847, this court may exercise jurisdiction

only over final orders,

, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp.,

(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

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

(2012) (citing

Slack v. McDaniel,

(2000)).

3 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6184 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/27/2023 Pg: 4 of 4

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