UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6398
EDWARD L. WIGGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-6753
EDWARD L. WIGGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate
Judge. (3:07-cv-00211-MHL)
Submitted: June 22, 2009 Decided: June 30, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edward L. Wiggins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Edward L. Wiggins seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’s * order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition, and the subsequent order denying a certificate of
appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will
not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wiggins
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we
grant Wiggins’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny
certificates of appealability, deny his motion for bond, and
dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the
*
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
3
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4