US v. James Niblock, No. 16-6816 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6816 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES R. NIBLOCK, Defendant - Appellant.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; 1:04-cv-00361-HEH) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph A. Connors, III, LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. CONNORS III, McAllen, Texas, for Appellant. Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James R. Niblock seeks to appeal from the district court’s order construing his motion to adjudicate claims as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying it on that basis and also from the denial of Niblock’s motions for reconsideration and for a hearing. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). issue absent “a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Niblock 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 2 adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
