US v. Aaron Graham - Appeal Dismissed

4th Circuit Daily Opinions

Filed February 23rd, 2026

Detected February 24th, 2026

Summary

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal of Aaron Graham, denying his request for a certificate of appealability. The court found that Graham failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, rendering the district court's order unappealable.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has dismissed the appeal filed by Aaron Graham, who sought to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Graham failed to meet the standard for a certificate of appealability, which requires demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong. As unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit, this dismissal does not establish new legal precedent.

This action means the appeal is concluded, and the district court's decision stands. For regulated entities, this case serves as a reminder of the procedural requirements for appealing post-conviction relief motions, particularly the need to demonstrate a debatable constitutional issue. No further action is required by regulated entities as this is a specific case outcome, not a new regulatory requirement.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25 - 6212 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. AARON GRAHAM, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the District of Mary land, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, Sen ior District Judge. (1:11 - cr - 00094 - RDB -1; 1:19 - cv - 018 85 - RDB) Submitted: Febru ar y 19, 2026 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Aaron Graham, Appellant Pro Se. David Ch ristian Bornstein, Assistant U nited S tates Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Aaron Graham seeks to app eal the district court’s ord er denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 225 5 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of app ealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2 253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a sub stantial showing of the denial of a co nstitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district c ourt denies relief on th e merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists c ould find the district court’s assessment o f the constitutional claims debatable or wro ng. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 11 5 - 17 (2017). When the district cou rt denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion stat es a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 14 0 - 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal co ntentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argumen t would n ot aid the decisional process. DISMISSED