UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2344
In Re: JAMES NIBLOCK,
Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1)
No. 11-6022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JAMES RAYMOND NIBLOCK,
Defendant – Appellant.
No. 11-6309
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; 1:04-cv-00361-HEH)
Submitted: April 18, 2011 Decided: April 29, 2011
Before KING, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
No. 10-2344 petition denied; Nos. 11-6022 and 11-6309 affirmed
by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Niblock, Petitioner/Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In No. 10-2344, James Niblock petitions for a writ of
mandamus seeking an order from this court directing the district
court to rule on his motion for a new trial, or an order
vacating his conviction and ordering his release from prison.
We conclude that Niblock is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used
only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States
Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v.
Moussaoui, 333 F.3d 509, 516-17 (4th Cir. 2003). Mandamus
relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right
to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 860
F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Additionally, mandamus may not
be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin
Corp., 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). Because the district
court has denied Niblock’s motion for a new trial, his request
for an order directing the district court to act is moot. To
the extent that Niblock seeks an order vacating his conviction
and ordering his release, mandamus relief is not available where
review may be had on appeal. Accordingly, while we grant
Niblock leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition
for writ of mandamus.
In No. 11-6022, Niblock seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motions: (1) to supplement the record
3
in Appeals Nos. 10-7065 and 10-7066 with recently discovered
evidence; (2) for a new trial and for relief from the judgment;
and (3) for appointment of counsel. Appeal No. 11-6309 is
Niblock’s appeal from the district court’s order denying his
motions: (1) for a hearing on his claim to an exemption from
garnishment and forfeiture; (2) for summary judgment on his Fed.
R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion following the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2010) motion; and (3) for return of property. The
district court denied all of these motions based on the reasons
stated in the court’s prior orders denying motions raising the
same or similar claims.
We have reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. We
deny as moot Niblock’s motions to expedite and for release on
bond pending appeal. 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.
No. 10-2344 PETITION DENIED
Nos. 11-6022 and 11-6309 AFFIRMED
4