United States v. Terrence Miller

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 25-6481 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 25-6481

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TERRENCE DENON MILLER, a/k/a Wank,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:18-cr-00054-FL-1; 4:24-cv-00044- FL)

Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: September 3, 2025

Before GREGORY, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Denon Miller, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-6481 Doc: 7 Filed: 09/03/2025 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Denon Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Miller’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

(2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the motion

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s motion to seal the informal brief, *

deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

* The informal brief does not contain any sensitive or confidential information.