Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07465/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07465-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:06-cv-00548-HFF)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7465 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

In February 2006, Henry Earl Miller filed in the 

district court a letter challenging his conviction and 300-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to armed robbery, 

using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and 

aiding and abetting in these offenses. The district court 

properly characterized this letter as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

2006 & Supp. 2009) motion, and ultimately denied relief. Miller 

has since filed numerous motions in the district court seeking 

to reinstate his ability to file a § 2255 motion. 

Miller now appeals the district court’s text orders

denying his motions in which he again challenges the district 

court’s characterization of his February 2006 letter as a § 2255 

motion and seeks to file another § 2255 motion. 

The orders are 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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

Appeal: 09-7465 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s 

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We also deny Miller’s motions to address counsel’s 

failure to file a notice of appeal, to accept apology, and for 

clarification. 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

Appeal: 09-7465 Doc: 13 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 3 of 3