Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07410/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07410-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7410

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; 1:11-cv-01413-LMB; 

1:09-cv-01008-LMB)

Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont 

Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, 

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7410 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/19/2014 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Lora seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an 

unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, or in 

the alternative, denying Rule 60(b) relief, and its order 

denying Lora’s motion to alter or amend that decision, pursuant 

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). These orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) 

(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that the district 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). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Lora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

Appeal: 14-7410 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/19/2014 Pg: 2 of 3
3

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

also deny Lora’s motion to place his case in abeyance. 

Additionally, we construe Lora’s notice of appeal and 

informal brief as an application to file a second or successive 

§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 

(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on 

either:

(1) newly discovered evidence that . . . would be 

sufficient to establish by clear and convincing 

evidence that no reasonable factfinder would have 

found the movant guilty of the offense; or

(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive 

to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court, 

that was previously unavailable.

28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Lora’s claims do not satisfy either 

of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a 

successive § 2255 motion.

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

Appeal: 14-7410 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/19/2014 Pg: 3 of 3