US v. James Niblock, No. 08-8540 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8540 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES R. NIBLOCK, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District Judge. (1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1) Submitted: March 26, 2009 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit Judges, April 6, 2009 and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James R. Niblock seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the propriety of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) reconsideration of that order. unless a circuit appealability. 369 F.3d 363, justice or motion, and denying The orders are not appealable judge issues a certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 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 Niblock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Niblock s motion for release on bond pending appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.