United States of America v. Patrick Tylicki, a/k/a Patrick Tylick

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-6083
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PATRICK TYLICKI, a/k/a Patrick Tylick,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cr-00172-MOC-SCR-1; 3:24-cv-
01108)
Submitted: June 18, 2026 Decided: June 24, 2026
Before GREGORY and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Tylicki, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Patrick Tylicki seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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.
Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000)).
* We have “an independent obligation to verify the existence of appellate
jurisdiction.” Williamson v. Stirling, 912 F.3d 154, 168 (4th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation
marks omitted). The district court entered its order denying Tylicki’s § 2255 motion on
July 28, 2025. Tylicki did not note his appeal within 60 days of that order, see Fed. R.
App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), and the district court denied Tylicki’s motion for an extension of the
appeal period, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5). But, because the district court did not enter a
separate judgment, the appeal period did not commence until December 25, 2025. See Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(7)(ii); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), (c)(2); see also Hughes v. Halifax Cnty. Sch.
Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1987) (defining separate judgment). Tylicki filed his
notice of appeal, at the latest, by January 12, 2026. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v.
Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 276 (1988). We therefore conclude that we have jurisdiction over
Tylicki’s timely appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Tylicki has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Tylicki’s motion for 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

-- 3 of 3 --