Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • United States v. Lora, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision from 2009 dismissing an appeal from Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora. The district court had construed Lora's complaint as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court also denied Lora's Rule 59(e) motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lora had not made the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-03-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-8005

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision from 2009 dismissing an appeal from Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora. The district court had construed Lora's complaint as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court also denied Lora's Rule 59(e) motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lora had not made the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    United States v. Lora, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes an unpublished appellate court decision from 2009 dismissing an appeal from Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora. The district court had construed Lora's complaint as an unauthorized successive motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court also denied Lora's Rule 59(e) motion. The appellate court independently reviewed the record and determined that Lora had not made the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, so it dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    Certiorari dismissed, March 7, 2011

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-8005

    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:

    February 25, 2010

    Decided:

    March 4, 2010

    Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    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
    courts

    order

    construing

    his

    complaint

    as

    successive

    28 U.S.C.A. 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion and dismissing it


    for lack of jurisdiction and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 59(e) motion.
    justice

    or

    judge

    The orders are not appealable unless a circuit


    issues

    certificate

    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).


    not

    issue

    absent

    constitutional
    prisoner
    reasonable

    satisfies
    jurists

    constitutional

    28

    this

    by

    showing

    U.S.C.

    find
    the

    of

    the

    2253(c)(2)

    standard

    would

    claims

    appealability.

    28

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    right.

    of

    that

    by

    assessment

    court

    is

    of

    (2006).

    demonstrating

    any

    district

    denial

    a
    A

    that

    of

    debatable

    the
    or

    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district


    Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

    court is likewise debatable.

    322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);
    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    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 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
    2

    You might also like