US v. Niblock
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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)
October 31, 2007
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: James Niblock appeals the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. certificate of appealability on two We previously granted a 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. (2003). See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
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 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.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?