Filed: Nov. 24, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES R. NIBLOCK, Defendant - Appellant.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: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Niblock, Appella
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES R. NIBLOCK, Defendant - Appellant.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: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James R. Niblock, Appellan..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7149 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JAMES R. NIBLOCK, Defendant - Appellant.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: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 24, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James R. Niblock appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to compel discovery. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Niblock, No. 1:02-cr-00568-GBL-1 (E.D. Va. July 2, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
