
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilfredo Gonzalez LORA, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-6406.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 24, 2010.
    Decided: July 1, 2010.
    Wilfredo Gonzalez Lora, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas More Hollenhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 certifícate of ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently x-eviewed the record and conclude that Lora has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Lora’s motion to file a formal brief, grant 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.  