UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
2
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
3