United States of America v. Henry Earl Miller

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Henry Earl Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s
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 his
“motion/demand that attached 28 USC § 2255 motion be accepted
and filed as a first § 2255 motion as mandated in [United
States] v. Blackstock, 513 F.3d 128 (4th Cir. 2008).” 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 and that any 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 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

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --