Graham Harry Schiff v. Maryland Attorney General

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6147
GRAHAM HARRY SCHIFF,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Deborah Lynn Boardman, District Judge. (1:21-cv-02448-DLB)
Submitted: May 24, 2022 Decided: May 27, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Graham Harry Schiff, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Graham Harry Schiff seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The order is 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. We deny Schiff’s motions for a stay pending appeal and to expedite. 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 of 2 --