United States of America v. Tyler Lloyd Grantz

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6704
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TYLER LLOYD GRANTZ,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:19-cr-00459-WO-1;
1:23-cv-00107-WO-JLW)
Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 31, 2025
Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyler Lloyd Grantz, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Tyler Lloyd Grantz seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Grantz’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 motion. See Whiteside v. United States, 775 F.3d 180, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en
banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are subject to one-year statute of limitations, running
from latest of four commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When, as here,
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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41
(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grantz 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

-- 2 of 2 --