Graham Schiff v. Warden

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

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 of 2 --