USCA4 Appeal: 25-6091 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6091

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DARION GRAHAM, a/k/a Pluck,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (7:19-cr-00126-FL-1; 7:24-cv-00104- FL)

Submitted: October 30, 2025 Decided: November 4, 2025

Before RUSHING and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ali Tariq Nayfeh, Andrew Tutt, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6091 Doc: 8 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Darion Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Graham’s

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See

(c)(1)(B). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(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,

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

(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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2