Court Opinion

ID: 9365133
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-21 21:00:31.283998+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.491121
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6938      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/20/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6938

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, Stefan,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (6:04-cr-00022-JMC-3)

        Submitted: January 17, 2023                                       Decided: January 20, 2023

        Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Henry Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE
        UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6938       Doc: 12        Filed: 01/20/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Henry Earl Miller appeals the district court’s order denying his motion for a writ of

        error coram nobis. Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the district court did

        not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. See United States v. Lesane, 40 F.4th 191,

        196-97 (4th Cir. 2022) (stating standard of review and explaining requirements for coram

        nobis relief).   This court has rejected Miller’s claim that his sentences violated his

        protection against double jeopardy. See United States v. Shavers, 820 F.2d 1375, 1377-78

        (4th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the

        facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       AFFIRMED

                                                     2