FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 5, 2008 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK

Honora ble C. Roge r Vinson, United States District Judge f or the Nor

thern District of * Florida , sitti ng by

desig nation. [DO NO T PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

N o. 07- 1397 5
D. C. Docket N o. 04-01120 CV -W SD -1 JON AT HA

N MI LL ER , Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us MIC HELLE MARTIN, W ard en of P hi ll ip s St at e Pri so n, Res po nd en t-Ap pe ll ee.

Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

(M ay 5 , 200 8) Before TJO FL AT and MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg es and VI NS ON , District Judge. * PE R CU RIA M:2

Pe tit ion er is a G eo rg iapr iso n in m at e, se rv ing ali fe se nte nc e fo r fe lon y
m ur de r. A ft er

the S upr em e Co urt of

G eo rg iaa ff

irm ed his c onvi ct ion , Mi lle r v. State, 571 S.E . 2d. 788 (Ga. 2002 ), and the Suprem e Court of the United States declined to iss ue a w rit of cer tiorari, he petitioned th e U nited States District C ourt fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of G eo rg iaf

or aw ri t of ha be as c or pus pur suant t o 28 U
. S. C. § 22 54. H e pr es en te d si x c la im s f or r el ie f. T he dis tr ic t c ourt r ef er re d th e pe tit ionto a m ag istrate j udge
. A ft er the S ta te r es pond ed

to the pe tit ion , the

m ag istrate j udge , r el y ing on the r ec or d of the pr oc ee din gs b ef

or e the sup er ior
c o u rtt h a th a n d l e dp e t i t i o n e r ’s p r o s e c u t i o n , t h e b r i e f s p r e s e n t e dt o t h e S up r e me Co urt of G eo rg iaon a

ppe al , a nd tha t c ourt’ s de ci sio n, iss ue d aRe port and Rec omm en da ti on (“ R & R” ) rec omm en di ng th atth e d is tri ctco ur t d en y th e wri t. O n F eb ru ar

y 26, 200 7, the dis tr ic t c ourt, a ft er c onsi de ri ng and o ve rr

uli ng petition er’ s objections to the R & R, issued an Opinion and Or der, which adopted the R & R

w ithsup ple m en ta tio n, de ny ing the w ri t. P et iti one r m ove d th e co urt f or reconsideration of its decision , and, on August 20 , 2007, the district court entere d
anor de r de ny ing his m oti on. T he or de r gr an te d pe tit ion er ac er tif ic at e of ap pe al ab ili ty

( “ CO A ”) on the f

oll ow ing iss ue s: 1. D id G eo rg iavio la te [ pe tit ion er ’ s] F if th A m en dm en t du e pr oc es s rights or Eighth Am endm ent right to be free f rom cruel and un usual puni shm en t w he n th e Su

pe ri or Co urt a ssu m ed

j ur isd ic tio n of

theThe district cour t resol 1 ved the issues c ited in the COA in the following portions of its Opinion and Order : the first issue, at pag es 7-12; the se cond issue, at pa g es 12-22; the third issue, at pag es 22-34; the f ourth issue, at pag es 34-46. 3

aggravated assault and aggravated battery charges w ithou t a transfe r hearing in the juvenile court, and, if c onsti tutio nal error occurre d, w as it ha rm fu l? 2. D id the pr e- tr ia l pu

bli ci ty in [p et iti one r’ s] c as e, inc lud ing the occurrence of the Colum

bine schoo l shoo ting in cident shortlybefore his trial, cr eate a

constitu tionallyunfair atm osph ere for his trial such that it was a violatio n of [petitioner’ s] due process rights for the court to deny his m otion s for continuance and change of venue? 3. D id S an dstro m

e rr or a t [ pe tit ion er ’ s] tr ia l vi ola te his due pr oc es s ri ght s by a llo w ing him

to be c onvi ct ed

of f el ony m ur de r w he n: 1 ) the j ury m ade no specific finding as to which und erly ing felonythey used as apr ed ic at e fo r the f

el ony m ur de r co nvi ct ion ; and 2 ) the j ur y c ha rg e for one of the underly ing felonies (aggravated assault) wa s constitu tionallydefec tive? 4. I s [ pe tit ion er ’ s] c la im

tha t hi s se nte nc e vio la te s th e E igh th A m en dm en t a de qua te ly

pr es er ve d f or r ev ie w , a nd, if

so, doe s th e se nte nc e of

li fe w iththe pos sib ili ty

of paro le c onst itu te c ru el a nd unus ua l punis hm en t w he n le vie d a ga ins t a 15- y ear old

w ho c au se d a de ath bu t w as not

pr ove n to ha ve a n in te nt t o ki ll or inj ur e se ri ousl y t h e v i c t i m? A ft er he ar ing or al a rg um en t onthe se iss ue s, w e ar e co nvi nc ed tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt r es olv ed

the se iss ue s c or

re ct ly , a nd w e ag re e w iththe r ea soni ng the
co urt e m plo y ed in doi ng s o. 1 Th e ju d g men to f

t h e d i s t r i c tc o u rti s , a c c o r d i n g l y,4

AFFIRMED.