United States v. Miller ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7708
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY EARL MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 09-7709
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. (6:06-cv-00548-HFF)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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.
In these consolidated appeals, Miller seeks to appeal
the district court’s orders 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 his
“Motion/Request for Admissions.”
The orders are 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
3
court is likewise debatable. Miller-El 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 conclude that Miller has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s
motions for certificates of appealability and for clarification,
and dismiss the appeals. 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
4