Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07778/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07778-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry Earl Miller
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7777

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-7778

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals 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.

Appeal: 09-7778 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7778 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

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. 

In these consolidated appeals, Miller appeals the 

district court’s text orders denying his motions in which he 

claimed that his Speedy Trial Rights were violated, his plea 

coerced, his sentence a violation of double jeopardy and 

racially motivated, and that his February 2006 letter was 

improperly characterized as a § 2255 motion. He also challenges 

the district court’s dismissal of his motion to have the United 

States revisit his case.

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 

Appeal: 09-7778 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

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. 

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 

motions for certificates of appealability and dismiss the 

appeals. 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: 09-7778 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 4 of 4