US v. Henry Miller, No. 09-7467 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7467 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY EARL MILLER, Defendant - Appellant.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: November 18, 2009 Decided: December 17, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 dismissing informed why without this Court prejudice his will apply not motion/request [United to be States] v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008) to this case, and his motion/demand that attached 28 USC § 2255 motion be accepted and filed as a first § 2255 motion as mandated in States] v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008). [United The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable or wrong district and court that are any dispositive also debatable procedural or wrong. rulings by Miller-El the v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 326 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Miller s pending motions to accept apology and for clarification. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 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.
