Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06459/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06459-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James R. Niblock
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6459

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: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 27, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James R. Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. William P. Jauquet, Special 

Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6459 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James R. Niblock seeks to appeal his 2003 criminal judgment 

imposed following his guilty plea to five counts of wire fraud, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (2012). The district court entered 

judgment on August 1, 2003. At that time, Rule 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure required a defendant in a 

criminal case to file his notice of appeal within ten days of the 

entry of judgment.1 With or without a motion, upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an 

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 (4th 

Cir. 1985). 

Niblock filed his notice of appeal on March 26, 2015. Because 

Niblock failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an 

extension of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal as untimely.2

Niblock’s motion for transcripts at government expense is denied. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

 1 Rule 4 was amended effective December 1, 2009, to establish 

a 14-day appeal period. Fed. R. Crim. P. 4(b)(1)(A) (2009).

2 We note that the appeal period in a criminal case is not a 

jurisdictional provision, but, rather, a claim-processing rule. 

United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Because Niblock’s appeal is inordinately late, and its 

consideration is not in the best interest of judicial economy, we 

exercise our inherent power to dismiss it. See United States v. 

Mitchell, 518 F.3d 740, 744, 750 (10th Cir. 2008).

Appeal: 15-6459 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6459 Doc: 13 Filed: 07/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3