United States v. Niblock , 254 F. App'x 986 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-6353
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
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-568-GBL; 1:04-cv-361)
Submitted: October 31, 2007 Decided: November 21, 2007
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph A. Connors, III, McAllen, Texas, for Appellant. Chuck
Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Charles F. Connolly, Assistant
United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Niblock appeals the district court’s order denying
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. We previously granted a
certificate of appealability on two issues: whether counsel
rendered ineffective assistance to Niblock by denying him the right
to testify and whether counsel was ineffective for failing to note
a direct appeal. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 327
(2003). After a review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we
conclude that the district court correctly denied relief on these
claims. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. See United States v. Niblock, Nos. 1:02-cr-568-
GBL; 1:04-cv-361 (E.D. Va. Feb. 28, 2005); see Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am.
Nat’l Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998) (holding
that, absent justification, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions “may not
be used . . . to raise arguments which could have been raised prior
to the issuance of the judgment”). 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.
AFFIRMED
- 2 -