US v. Wilfredo Lora
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
February 25, 2010
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?