Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06816/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06816-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Dismissed by Supreme Court, May 15, 2017

Appeal: 16-6816 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

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. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Appeal: 16-6816 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6816 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3