US v. Ricky Lee Tyndall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:10-cr-00200-RBS-DEM-1,2:13-cv-00574-RBS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999860991]. Mailed to: Ricky Lee Tyndall FCI MCKEAN FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 8000 Bradford, PA 16701-0980. [16-6007]

Appeal: 16-6007

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6007

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:

May 5, 2016

Decided:

June 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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 Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6007

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ricky
order

Lee

Tyndall

denying

his

seeks

Fed.

to

R.

appeal
Civ.

the

P.

district

60(b)

court’s

motion

for

reconsideration of the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.
unless

a

circuit

appealability.

justice

or

The order is not appealable

judge

issues

a

certificate

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

of

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

must

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 and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-6007

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 06/21/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3