US v. Henry Miller, No. 09-7793 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7793 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY EARL MILLER, Defendant - Appellant.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appeals the district court s text order denying his motion in which he asserts that his sentences were imposed in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit certificate of appealability. certificate of justice issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A appealability will or not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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 2 Cir. 2001). conclude that Accordingly, We have Miller we deny independently has not Miller s made reviewed the motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the record requisite for and showing. certificate of 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
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.
