UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7791
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAMON RICARDO LORA,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 03-6500
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
RAMON RICARDO LORA,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CR-
99-196-DKC, CA-02-4197-DKC)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 20, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
No. 02-7791 affirmed and No. 03-6500 dismissed by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Ramon Ricardo Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Bryan Edwin Foreman, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
The cases have been consolidated on appeal. In No. 02-7791,
Ramon Ricardo Lora appeals the district court order denying his
motion to compel the Government to comply with a written agreement.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. See United States v. Lora, No. CR-99-196-DKC; CA-02-4197-DKC
(D. Md. Nov. 6, 2002).
In No. 03-6500, Lora seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his motion for leave to file a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) motion out of time and denying reconsideration of
that order. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
§ 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When,
as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on
procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue
unless the movant can demonstrate both “(1) ‘that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim
of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of
reason would find it debatable whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684
(4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)),
cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite
3
showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029
(2003).
Accordingly, in No. 02-7791, we affirm, and in No. 03-6500, 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.
No. 02-7791- AFFIRMED
No. 03-6500 - DISMISSED
4