Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06406/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06406-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6406

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: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 1, 2010

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6406 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his motion for an evidentiary hearing 

as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion and 

dismissing for lack of jurisdiction. Lora also seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We deny Lora’s motion to file a formal brief, grant 

Appeal: 10-6406 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

the motion to seal his informal appellate brief, and deny the 

motion to seal his original § 2255 motion and the district 

court’s order denying it. We dispense with oral 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

Appeal: 10-6406 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/01/2010 Pg: 3 of 3