Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant; United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Defendant-Appellant; 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: 2002-04-12
Citations: 32 F. App'x 106
Docket Number: Nos. 02-6178, 02-6191, 02-6366
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 32
Pages: 106–106

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Defendant-Appellant.
Nos. 02-6178, 02-6191, 02-6366.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 15, 2002.
Decided April 12, 2002.
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora appeals the district court's orders (1) denying his motion for new trial filed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33; (2) denying his motion to dismiss the indictment under Fed.R.Crim.P. 12(b)(2); (3) denying his motions to reconsider the denial of his Rule 12(b)(2) and Rule 33 motions; and (4) denying his emergency motion for grand jury documents and motion for appointment of counsel. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Lora, No. CR-98-358-A (E.D. Va. filed Dec. 14 & entered Dec. 17, 2001; Jan. 4, 2002; Jan. 9, 2002; Jan. 17, 2002; filed Feb. 7 & entered Feb. 8, 2002). 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.
AFFIRMED.