Miller v. United States , 369 F. App'x 484 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED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.
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dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
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
3
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
4