Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Wilfredo Lora v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. A panel of three circuit judges affirmed a district court's orders denying Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora's Motion to Alter or Amend under Rule 60(b)(4) and a subsequent motion to alter records. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in those rulings. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-08-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6576

    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 a United States Court of Appeals case. A panel of three circuit judges affirmed a district court's orders denying Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora's Motion to Alter or Amend under Rule 60(b)(4) and a subsequent motion to alter records. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in those rulings. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    Wilfredo Lora v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a United States Court of Appeals case. A panel of three circuit judges affirmed a district court's orders denying Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora's Motion to Alter or Amend under Rule 60(b)(4) and a subsequent motion to alter records. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error. It affirmed the district court's rulings for the reasons stated in those rulings. The appeals court dispensed with oral argument because the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 14-6576

    WILFREDO GONZALEZ LORA,


    Petitioner Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
    NATURALIZATION SERVICE (INS),

    JUSTICE,

    IMMIGRATION

    AND

    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Leonie M. Brinkema,
    District Judge. (1:02-cv-01507-LMB)

    Submitted:

    August 21, 2014

    Decided:

    August 26, 2014

    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. William Joseph Howard,


    Assistant United States Attorney, Washington, D.C.; David
    Moskowitz,
    Assistant
    United
    States
    Attorney,
    Alexandria,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Wilfredo
    orders

    denying

    subsequent

    Gonzalez

    his

    Motion

    Fed.

    to

    Alter

    Lora
    R.

    appeals

    Civ.

    or

    Amend

    P.

    the

    district

    60(b)(4)

    the

    motion

    Records.

    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

    courts

    We

    and
    have

    Accordingly,

    we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

    Lora v.

    U.S. Dept of Justice, Immigration & Naturalization Serv., No.


    1:02-cv-01507-LMB (E.D. Va. filed & entered Feb. 11, 2014; filed
    Feb. 28 & entered Mar. 3, 2014).

    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.

    AFFIRMED

    You might also like