US v. Wilfredo Lora

Filing 920100304

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8005

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:98-cr-00358-LMB-4; 1:09-cv-01008-LMB)

Submitted:

February 25, 2010

Decided:

March 4, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his complaint as a successive

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. justice or judge The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or

substantial 28

constitutional prisoner reasonable

right." this would by

U.S.C. standard

§ 2253(c)(2) by any

satisfies jurists

demonstrating assessment is of

find the

that

constitutional

claims

district

court

debatable

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate We dispense with oral

of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2