Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 14 views

    United States v. James Niblock, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Niblock's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Niblock did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    United States v. James Niblock, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    14 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Niblock's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Niblock did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-04-28 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7268

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Niblock's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Niblock did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    14 views3 pages

    United States v. James Niblock, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed James Niblock's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motions for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The court determined that Niblock did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability, as he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    Dismissed by Supreme Court, November 3, 2014

    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7268

    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:

    April 24, 2014

    Decided:

    April 28, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Joseph A. Connors III, McAllen, Texas, for Appellant.


    Dana J.
    Boente, Acting United States Attorney, William P. Jauquet,
    Special Assistant 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 courts
    orders

    denying

    his

    Fed.

    R.

    Civ.

    P.

    60(b)

    motions

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on


    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    appealable

    2255

    unless

    (2012)

    motion.

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.
    A

    certificate

    of

    justice

    The

    orders

    or

    judge

    are
    issues

    not
    a

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    demonstrating
    district

    merits,
    that

    courts

    debatable

    or

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    reasonable

    assessment

    wrong.

    Slack

    satisfies

    jurists

    this

    would

    of

    the

    v.

    McDaniel,

    standard

    find

    constitutional
    529

    U.S.

    by

    that

    the

    claims

    is

    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

    claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

    debatable

    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
    2

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like