US v. Niblock

Filing 920071121

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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-

district court.

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

- 2 -