Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06149/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06149-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James Niblock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6149

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JAMES NIBLOCK,

Defendant – Appellant.

No. 10-6606

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. Leonie M. Brinkema, Gerald 

Bruce Lee, District Judges. (1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1; 1:09-cv00357-GBL)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 10, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 10-6149 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6149 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

James R. Niblock seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 

2009) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Niblock’s motion to remand the case, deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

Appeal: 10-6149 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6149 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/10/2010 Pg: 4 of 4