United States v. Miller ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7690
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Miller now seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his “Motion/Request for Admissions.” The 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
2
conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motions for certificate of
appealability and for clarification, 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
3