United States v. Wilfredo Lora , 475 F. App'x 920 ( 2012 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6917
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)
Submitted: August 16, 2012 Decided: August 21, 2012
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Gonzalez Lora seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his motion for hearing as a successive
28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and dismissing it
without prejudice on that basis, and the court’s order denying
his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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
2
deny Lora’s motions for subpoena forms and for summary judgment.
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