Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07690/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07690-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7690

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. 

(6:04-cr-00022-HFF-3)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7690 Doc: 8 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 seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his “Motion/Request for Admissions.” The order is 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. MillerEl 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 

Appeal: 09-7690 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motions for certificate of 

appealability and for clarification, and dismiss the appeal. 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: 09-7690 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/17/2010 Pg: 3 of 3