NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TERESA MILLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee

______________________

2023-1872

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims 

in No. 1:23-cv-00525-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp.

______________________

ON MOTION

______________________

Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Teresa Miller moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), ECF Nos. 17 and 18. She also moves “for a 

stay or injunction in appeal,” ECF No. 21, and to allow argument, ECF Nos. 7, 8, and 13. After consideration of the 

complaint, the judgment of the United States Court of 

Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2023
2 MILLER v. US

Federal Claims, Ms. Miller’s briefs, and the motions papers, we deny the motions and dismiss the appeal.

Ms. Miller was convicted in the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of West Virginia of one 

count of unlawfully possessing a firearm that was uncovered by dog sniff during a traffic stop. See United States v. 

Miller, 54 F.4th 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2022). On appeal, the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit vacated her conviction and sentence, holding that the officer 

who conducted the traffic stop lacked a reasonable, articulable factual basis to extend the traffic stop to conduct the 

dog sniff. See id. The case was ultimately dismissed.

In April 2023, Ms. Miller filed this suit at the Court of 

Federal Claims seeking $276,715.75 in damages to compensate for her conviction and imprisonment, including for 

the loss of employment and business revenue and for injuries related to her conviction and the conditions of her incarceration. The Court of Federal Claims granted Ms. 

Miller’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, certified under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal “would not be taken 

in good faith because, as alleged, [Ms. Miller]’s claims are 

outside the jurisdiction of this Court and incurable,” and 

directed the Clerk of that court to reject any future submissions in the case unless they comply with the court’s rules.

ECF No. 19 at Appx4. This appeal followed.

“[T]he court shall dismiss . . . if the court determines 

that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This appeal is frivolous. The Court of 

Federal Claims was clearly correct to dismiss Ms. Miller’s 

claim for unjust conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 because 

she failed to plausibly allege that “her conviction has been 

reversed or set aside on the ground that [s]he is not guilty 

of the offense of which [s]he was convicted, or on new trial 

or rehearing [s]he was found not guilty of such offense, as 

appears from the record or certificate of the court setting 

Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2023
MILLER v. US 3

aside or reversing such conviction, or that [s]he has been 

pardoned,” 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(1). Moreover, she has not 

received a certificate required under § 2513(b).* It was also 

clearly correct that Ms. Miller’s claims of emotional distress and other associated harms from when she was incarcerated “sound[] in tort” and thus outside the limited 

jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1491(a)(1); U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 

1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

 (2) All pending motions are denied.

 (3) Each side shall bear its own costs.

December 20, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

* We must reject Ms. Miller’s request for this court 

to direct a judge to issue her a certificate of innocence. See

ECF No. 4 at 2–3. She points to no authority, nor are we 

aware of any, providing this court with such ability. 

Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2023