US v. Robert Fall - 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 Robert Michael Fall, denying a certificate of appealability. The court found that Fall did not make the required showing to appeal the district court's denial of his motion for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

View original document View source feed page

What changed

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has dismissed the appeal of Robert Michael Fall, denying his request for a certificate of appealability. The court reviewed the district court's order denying relief on Fall's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and concluded that Fall failed to demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). The dismissal means the district court's decision stands and the appeal cannot proceed.

This decision is an unpublished opinion and therefore not binding precedent in the Fourth Circuit. For regulated entities, this case represents a routine procedural outcome in the appellate process for post-conviction relief. No specific compliance actions are required for entities based on this ruling, as it pertains to an individual's specific legal challenge and does not establish new legal standards or obligations.

Source document (simplified)

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF AP PEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24 - 6577 UNITED ST ATES OF AMER ICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. ROBERT M ICHAEL F ALL, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United S tates District Court for the Eastern D istrict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jamar Kentrell Walker, District Judge. (2:17 - cr - 00012 - JK W - DEM - 1; 2:21 - cv - 00556 - JKW) Submitted: February 19, 202 6 Decided: February 23, 2026 Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Creighton Sample, CRIMINAL CENTER LLC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Elizabeth Marie Yusi, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding p recedent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Robert Michael Fall seeks to app eal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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 o f 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 th at reasonable jurists could 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 court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 14 0 - 41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDan iel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). Limiting our review of the record to the issues raised in Fall’s informal brief, we conclude that Fall has not ma de the requisi te showing. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b); see also Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 1 77 (4th Ci r. 2014) (“ The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief. ”). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. W e dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials befo re this court and argument w ould not aid the decisional pr ocess. DISMISSED