Henry Miller v. US

Filing 920100311

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7228 HENRY EARL MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; INSTITUTION EDGEFIELD, WARDEN, FEDERAL CORRECTIONAL Respondents - Appellees. No. 09-7553 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY EARL MILLER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-7651 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. HENRY EARL MILLER, Defendant - Appellant. No. 09-7774 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. (6:09-cv-01150-HFF) Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: March 11, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. No. 09-7228 affirmed; Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. and 09-7774 Henry Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Appeal No. 09-7228, Henry Earl Miller, a federal prisoner, accepting appeals the the district of court's the order and judgment and recommendation magistrate judge dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. 2241(c)(3) (2006) petition. error. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the United States v. Miller, No. 6:09-cv-01150-HFF district court. (D.S.C. filed June 17, 2009; entered June 18, 2009). In Appeals Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, and 09-7774, Miller filed a motion for certificates of appealability and seeks to appeal: (1) the district court's text order dismissing without prejudice his "motion/request to be informed why this court will not apply [United States] v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008) to this case," and "motion/demand that attached 28 U.S.C. 2255 [(West Supp. 2009)] motion be accepted and filed as a first 2255 513 motion F.3d as 128 mandated (4th Cir. in [United (2) States] the v. Blackstock, 2008);" district court's text order 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 (3) the district court's text order denying his "motion to be informed if Defendant's consecutive sentences under both [18 U.S.C.] 2113(d) [(2006)] & [18 U.S.C.] 924(c) [(2006)] based 3 on his singular offense of `collecting money' does not violate the double jeopardy clause." These judge or matters are not appealable of not unless a circuit and "a justice of issues certificates will appealability, issue absent certificates appealability substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006). standard that his by demonstrating that claims A habeas appellant meets this reasonable are jurists and would that find any constitutional debatable dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. Miller-El 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 Miller's motion for certificates of appealability and dismiss Appeals Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, and 09-7774. We further deny Miller's pending motions to address failure of counsel, to accept apology, and for clarification. 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. No. 09-7228 AFFIRMED Nos. 09-7553, 09-7651, and 09-7774 DISMISSED 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?