US v. Ricky Tyndall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to amend/correct [999513311-2] Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-1,2:13-cv-00574-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999547280]. Mailed to: Ricky Tyndall. [14-7857]

Appeal: 14-7857

Doc: 11

Filed: 03/17/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ricky
order

Lee

Tyndall

dismissing

his

seeks
28

to

appeal

U.S.C.

the

§ 2255

district

(2012)

court’s

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.”
(2012).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

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).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

ruling

must
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.
oral

argument

because

the

facts
2

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 14-7857

Doc: 11

adequately

Filed: 03/17/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3