In re: Henry Earl Miller

UNPUBLISHED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 MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Henry Earl Miller, Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

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. Mandamus
is a drastic remedy to be used only in 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). “Courts are extremely
reluctant to grant a writ of mandamus.” In re Beard, 811 F.2d
818, 827 (4th Cir. 1987).
For the reasons stated by this court in the denial of
Miller’s prior actions raising the same issue raised in the
present mandamus petition, he is not eligible for mandamus
relief. 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
to recuse. 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.
PETITION DENIED

-- 3 of 3 --