Court Opinion

ID: 9390991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 21:01:19.89549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:38.719022
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7234      Doc: 23         Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 20-7234

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellee,

                      v.

        RALPH GRAHAM,

                             Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (3:01-cr-00035-GCM-1; 3:16-cv-
        00366-GCM)

        Submitted: April 25, 2023                                         Decided: April 27, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Joshua B. Carpenter, FEDERAL DEFENDERS OF WESTERN NORTH CAROLINA,
        INC., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7234      Doc: 23          Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Ralph Graham seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28

        U.S.C. § 2255 motion. In 2001, a jury convicted Graham of Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C.

        § 1951, two counts of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1),

        and brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c). The district court

        sentenced Graham as a career offender to a total of 294 months’ imprisonment. This court

        affirmed. United States v. Graham, 73 F. App’x 588 (4th Cir. 2003) (No. 01-4897).

               In his § 2255 motion, Graham argued that, under Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S.

        591 (2015), he no longer qualified as a career offender and that his § 924(c) conviction was

        invalid. The district court concluded that, although Graham was sentenced under a

        mandatory Sentencing Guidelines scheme (i.e., pre-United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

        (2005)), his motion was nevertheless time-barred, citing United States v. Brown, 868 F.3d

        297, 299 (4th Cir. 2017) (upholding dismissal as untimely of § 2255 movant’s Johnson

        challenge to career offender enhancement imposed under mandatory Guidelines scheme).

        The district court also dismissed Graham’s § 924(c) challenge based on United States v.

        Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir. 2019) (holding Hobbs Act robbery is categorically a

        crime of violence under § 924(c)). On appeal, Graham asks this court to revisit its decision

        in Brown.

               The district court’s order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

        certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7234         Doc: 23      Filed: 04/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        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 motion 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)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Graham has made

        the requisite showing. While Graham’s claim is untimely given our decision in Brown,

        868 F.3d at 299, the holding in Brown is at least debatable, as are the merits of Graham’s

        claim, see id. at 304-11 (Gregory, C.J., dissenting). Therefore, we grant a certificate of

        appealability on Graham’s claim challenging Brown. However, because one panel of this

        Circuit cannot overrule the decision of another, we affirm. See McMellon v. United States,

        387 F.3d 329, 332 (4th Cir. 2004) (en banc).

              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.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    3