UNPUBLISHED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 GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. The orders are not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2006). 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