Henry Miller

Filing 920090826

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1742

In Re:

HENRY EARL MILLER, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (6:04-cr-00022-HFF-3)

Submitted:

August 20, 2009

Decided:

August 26, 2009

Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge.

MICHAEL,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Henry Earl Miller has filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking a vacation or reversal of sentence, contending the district court violated Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137 (1995), in convicting him of two firearm counts. is a drastic remedy to be used only in Mandamus

extraordinary

circumstances, when "the petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain relief to which there is a clear and indisputable right." In re Blackwater Sec. Consulting, L.L.C., 460 F.3d 576,

592 (4th Cir. 2006) (internal quotations and citation omitted), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1381 (2007). reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus." 818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987). For the reasons stated by this court in the denial of Miller's present relief. prior actions raising he the is same not issue raised for in the "Courts are extremely In re Beard, 811 F.2d

mandamus

petition,

eligible

mandamus

See In re Miller, 319 F.Appx. 288 (4th Cir. Mar. 27,

2009) (No. 08-7272) motion; In re Miller, (No. 08-207)(4th Cir. July 11, 2008); In re Miller, 279 F. App'x 199 (4th Cir. June 03, 2008) (No.08-1433); In re Miller, 256 F. App'x 604 (Nov. 30, 2007) (No. 07-7120). Accordingly, although we grant leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We deny Miller's motions for writ of mandamus to be

adjudicated, release pending writ of mandamus proceedings, and 2

to recuse. legal before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

contentions the court

would

process. PETITION DENIED

3