Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee TYNDALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-21
Citations: 667 F. App'x 30
Docket Number: No. 16-6007
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee TYNDALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 30–31

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ricky Lee TYNDALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6007
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 5, 2016
Decided: June 21, 2016
Ricky Lee Tyndall, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla, Assistant United States Attorney, Elizabeth Marie Yusi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ricky Lee Tyndall seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tyndall 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED