US v. James Niblock

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999564166-2] Originating case number: 1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999627961]. [15-6459]

Appeal: 15-6459

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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.
Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

William P. Jauquet, Special
Alexandria, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6459

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

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).
judgment on August 1, 2003.

The district court entered

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).
2

Appeal: 15-6459

Doc: 13

Filed: 07/27/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3