UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7410
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; 1:11-cv-01413-LMB;
1:09-cv-01008-LMB)
Submitted: December 16, 2014 Decided: December 19, 2014
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Lamont
Creighton, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wilfredo Lora seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as an
unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, or in
the alternative, denying Rule 60(b) relief, and its order
denying Lora’s motion to alter or amend that decision, pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). These orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
(2012). 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
2
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
also deny Lora’s motion to place his case in abeyance.
Additionally, we construe Lora’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208
(4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion, a prisoner must assert claims based on
either:
(1) 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; or
(2) a new rule of constitutional law, made retroactive
to cases on collateral review by the Supreme Court,
that was previously unavailable.
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h) (2012). Lora’s claims do not satisfy either
of these criteria. Therefore, we deny authorization to file a
successive § 2255 motion.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3