Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-04
Citations: 112 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 04-6899
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6899.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2004.
Decided: Nov. 4, 2004.
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant pro se.
Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to amend his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). 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.
Additionally, we construe Lora's notice of appeal and informal brief on appeal as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2000). Lora's claim does not satisfy either of these conditions. Therefore, we decline to authorize Lora to file a successive § 2255 motion. 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