USCA4 Appeal: 25-2019 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-2019

In re: GRAHAM HARRY SCHIFF,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Extraordinary Writ.

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

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

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Graham Harry Schiff, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-2019 Doc: 7 Filed: 11/04/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Graham Harry Schiff—who currently is serving a Maryland state probationary

sentence—petitions this court pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 for an extraordinary writ,

seeking an order declaring unconstitutional and enjoining enforcement of Exec. Order No.

14,341,

-28 (Aug. 25, 2025).

This court’s authority to issue extraordinary writs pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 is

governed by the All Writs Act (the Act),

. Under the Act, federal courts

“may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and

agreeable to the usages and principles of law.”

(a). The Act “is a residual

source of authority to issue writs that are not otherwise covered by statute.” Carlisle v.

United States,

(1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus,

probationers may not resort to the Act, or to the common law writs it authorizes, when

another remedy is available. See, e.g., United States v. Swaby,

(4th Cir.

2017) (“A writ of coram nobis is an exceptional remedy that may be granted only when a

fundamental error has occurred and no other available remedy exists.”); United States v.

Torres,

(10th Cir. 2002) (recognizing that writ of audita querela is

unavailable if other remedies are available to petitioner). Because another remedy is

available to Schiff, he fails to satisfy the requirements for relief under the Act. We

therefore deny his petition for an extraordinary writ. 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.

PETITION DENIED

2