UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7065
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES NIBLOCK,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 10-7066
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES NIBLOCK,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeals 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; 1:10-cv-00529-GBL).
Submitted: January 18, 2011 Decided: January 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Niblock, Appellant Pro Se. Dana James Boente, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
James Niblock seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motions (1) to expedite a ruling on his motion
to alter or amend the judgment; (2) to dismiss as moot; (3) to
vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence; and (4) to enforce
the plea agreement by specific performance. The court ruled
that these were all attempts to file successive 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motions without authorization from the
court of appeals.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
3
and conclude that Niblock has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Niblock’s motion to supplement the record,
deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, and dismiss
the appeals. 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.
DISMISSED
4