United States v. Miller ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6108
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY EARL MILLER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(6:04-cr-00022-HFF-3)
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 this appeal, Miller seeks to appeal the district
court’s text order denying his motions: (1) “to amend the
unwarned recharacterized 3-page unlabeled letter;” (2) “for
written order setting forth defendant's ‘offense conduct’ for
which he was sentenced and punished under aiding and abetting 18
U.S.C. § 2113(d) [(2006)];” (3) “for written order setting forth
defendant's ‘offense conduct’ for which he was sentenced and
punished under aiding and abetting 18 [U.S.C.A.] § 924(c) [(West
2006 & Supp. 2009)];” (4) “for court to honor and uphold the
Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause;” (5) “to be informed
if defendant had not finally plead (sic) guilty to the bogus 18
U.S.C. § 924(c) charges would he still be waiting and rotting in
county jail for his jury trial;” (6) “to be informed why this
court allowed defendant’s counsel David W. Plowden to exit the
2
courtroom during Miller’s sentencing proceedings and what
purpose did such a stunt serve;” (7) “for clarification of the
purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) [(2006)]”; (8) “for court to
comply with the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals[’] instruction to
make an appropriate disposition on petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241motion;” (9) “for leave of court to amend the unwarned
recharacterized letter or to file a legally first § 2255 motion
on the basis of stare decisis;” (10) “for issuance of a show
cause order;” and (11) “for immediate release on the basis of
the Double Jeopardy Clause violation.”
This order is 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
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
3
motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeal. 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