United States v. Miller

Fourth Circuit

United States v. Miller

370 F. App'x 367

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 17, 2010

Docket097777

StatusUnpublished

This text of 370 F. App'x 367 (United States v. Miller) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Miller, 370 F. App'x 367 (4th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In February 2006, Henry Earl Miller filed in the district court a letter challenging his conviction and 300-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to armed robbery, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting in these offenses. The district court properly characterized this letter as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 & Supp. 2009) motion, and ultimately denied relief. Miller has since filed numerous motions in the district court seeking to reinstate his ability to file a § 2255 motion.

Miller appeals the district court’s text order denying his motion in which he asserts that his sentences were imposed in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (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 certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

In February 2006, Henry Earl Miller filed in the district court a letter challenging his conviction and 300-month sentence imposed following his guilty plea to armed robbery, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and aiding and abetting in these offenses. The district court properly characterized this letter as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 2006 & Supp. 2009) motion, and ultimately denied relief. Miller has since filed numerous motions in the district court seeking to reinstate his ability to file a § 2255 motion.

Miller appeals the district court’s text order denying his motion in which he asserts that his sentences were imposed in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (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 certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 F. App'x 367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-miller-ca4-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack