Graham Schiff v. Warden

USCA4 Appeal: 24-7219 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/02/2025 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-7219 GRAHAM SCHIFF, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (1:22-cv-03332-TDC) Submitted: June 12, 2025 Decided: July 2, 2025 Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-7219 Doc: 11 Filed: 07/02/2025 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Graham Schiff seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Schiff has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Schiff’s motion for injunctive relief, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. 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 2