US v. James Niblock

Filing 920090406

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-8540

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:

March 26, 2009

Decided:

April 6, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: James R. Niblock seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the propriety of the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion, and denying

reconsideration of that order. unless a circuit justice or

The orders are not appealable judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 369 F.3d 363,

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Niblock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Niblock's

motion for release on bond pending appeal, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3