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: 2010-03-04
Citations: 368 F. App'x 407
Docket Number: No. 09-8005
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wilfredo GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 368
Pages: 407–408

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Wilfredo GONZALEZ LORA, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-8005.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2010.
Decided: March 4, 2010.
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. 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 certifícate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.