US v. James Niblock, No. 10-7065 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7065 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES NIBLOCK, Defendant Appellant. No. 10-7066 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JAMES NIBLOCK, Defendant Appellant. Appeals 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; 1:10-cv-00529-GBL). Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 26, 2011 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: James Niblock seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motions (1) to expedite a ruling on his motion to alter or amend the judgment; (2) to dismiss as moot; (3) to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence; and (4) to enforce the plea agreement by specific performance. that these were all attempts to file The court ruled successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions without authorization from the court of appeals. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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. 484 (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record 3 and conclude that Niblock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Niblock s motion to supplement the record, deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeals. 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 4
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.
