Jerrod Benson v. Warden

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6726 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/23/2026 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6726

JERROD LAMONT BENSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:22-cv-02953-LKG)

Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 23, 2026

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerrod Lamont Benson, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6726 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/23/2026 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM: Jerrod Lamont Benson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. 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)).

As an initial matter, we deny Benson’s motion to appoint counsel. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Benson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Benson’s motion for 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