Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06707/USCOURTS-ca4-13-06707-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6707

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES EDWARD TYER, a/k/a James Edward Tyler, a/k/a Tyer 

Edward James, a/k/a Jay,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:08-cr-00043-CMH-2; 1:12-cv-00753-CMH)

Submitted: December 26, 2013 Decided: January 7, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Edward Tyer, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Keim, Tino Martin 

Lisella, Michael Edward Rich, Assistant United States Attorneys, 

Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6707 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/07/2014 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James Edward Tyer seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) 

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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Tyer 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 

Appeal: 13-6707 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/07/2014 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 13-6707 Doc: 16 Filed: 01/07/2014 Pg: 3 of 3