US v. Brandon Miller, No. 08-8384 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8384 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. BRANDON RASHEED MILLER, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00175-D; 5:08-cv-00006-D) Submitted: February 5, 2009 Decided: April 9, 2009 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brandon Rasheed Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Kelly Michele Perry, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brandon Rasheed Miller seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2000 & Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional prisoner right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional 28 U.S.C. this would claims by § 2253(c)(2) standard find the that district by (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate of Accordingly, we deny Miller s appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.