US v. Henry Miller, No. 09-7708 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7708 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY EARL MILLER, Defendant - Appellant.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: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. March 17, 2010 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In February 2006, Henry Earl Miller filed in the district court a letter challenging his conviction and 300-month sentence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 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial satisfies constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not right. jurists of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by any denial of (2006). demonstrating assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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
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.
