United States of America v. James R. Niblock

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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. William P. Jauquet, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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). The district court entered
judgment on August 1, 2003. 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 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --