Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06353/USCOURTS-ca4-06-06353-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 06-6353

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

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-568-GBL; 1:04-cv-361)

Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007

Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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

Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Charles F. Connolly, Assistant

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 06-6353 Doc: 52 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Niblock appeals the district court’s order denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We previously granted a

certificate of appealability on two issues: whether counsel

rendered ineffective assistance to Niblock by denying him the right

to testify and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to note

a direct appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327

(2003). After a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we

conclude that the district court correctly denied relief on these

claims. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See United States v. Niblock, Nos. 1:02-cr-568-

GBL; 1:04-cv-361 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2005); see Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am.

Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding

that, absent justification, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions “may not

be used . . . to raise arguments which could have been raised prior

to the issuance of the judgment”). 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.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 06-6353 Doc: 52 Filed: 11/21/2007 Pg: 2 of 2