Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07857/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07857-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ricky Lee Tyndall
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7857 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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 

Appeal: 14-7857 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7857 Doc: 11 Filed: 03/17/2015 Pg: 3 of 3