United States v. Ricky Tyndall

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7857
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
RICKY LEE TYNDALL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-1; 2:13-cv-00574-RBS)
Submitted: March 12, 2015 Decided: March 17, 2015
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ricky Lee Tyndall, Appellant Pro Se. Cameron Rountree, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Virginia Beach, Virginia;
Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Tyndall seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as
successive and denying Tyndall’s motion to file a late appeal of
his first § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s
assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Tyndall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability, deny Tyndall’s motion to
amend the caption, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3