US v. Henry Miller, No. 08-7272 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7272 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan, 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; 6:08-cv-70075-HFF) Submitted: January 21, 2009 Decided: March 27, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Henry Earl Miller seeks to appeal the district court s order denying as successive his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2006). judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. this 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). standard by demonstrating that A prisoner satisfies 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 record and showing. and Cir. 2001). conclude We that have Miller independently has not made reviewed the the requisite Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability dismiss the appeal. We also deny Miller s motions to expedite, to appoint counsel, to instruct the district court to accept filing of his § 2255 motion, for immediate release pending appeal, for recusal and reassignment, for an evidentiary hearing, for authorization to file a direct appeal, to amend § 2255 motion, and his complaint 2 of violations of Castro v. United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), and United States v. Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644 (4th Cir. 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.
