Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07651/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07651-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7228

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION EDGEFIELD,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-7553

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-7651

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

Appeal: 09-7651 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/11/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 09-7774

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. (6:09-cv-01150-HFF)

Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: March 11, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

No. 09-7228 affirmed; Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, and 09-7774 

dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7651 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/11/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

In Appeal No. 09-7228, Henry Earl Miller, a federal 

prisoner, appeals the district court’s order and judgment 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (2006) 

petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Miller, No. 6:09-cv-01150-HFF 

(D.S.C. filed June 17, 2009; entered June 18, 2009).

In Appeals Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, and 09-7774, Miller 

filed a motion for certificates of appealability and seeks to 

appeal: (1) the district court’s text order dismissing without 

prejudice his “motion/request to be informed why this court will 

not apply [United States] v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 

2008) to this case,” and “motion/demand that attached 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 [(West Supp. 2009)] motion be accepted and filed as a 

first § 2255 motion as mandated in [United States] v. 

Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008);” (2) the district 

court’s text order denying his “motion to be informed if the 

district court got the ‘air tight guilty plea’ out of the 

defendant that it so desperately campaigned to procure;” and 

(3) the district court’s text order denying his “motion to be 

informed if Defendant’s consecutive sentences under both [18 

U.S.C.] § 2113(d) [(2006)] & [18 U.S.C.] § 924(c) [(2006)] based 

Appeal: 09-7651 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/11/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

on his singular offense of ‘collecting money’ does not violate 

the double jeopardy clause.”

These matters are not appealable unless a circuit 

judge or justice issues certificates of appealability, and 

certificates 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 habeas appellant meets this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find 

that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any 

dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also 

debatable or wrong. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. 

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (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 

certificates of appealability and dismiss Appeals Nos. 09-7553, 

09-7651, and 09-7774. 

We further deny Miller’s pending motions to address 

failure of counsel, 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.

No. 09-7228 AFFIRMED

Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, and 09-7774 DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7651 Doc: 16 Filed: 03/11/2010 Pg: 4 of 4