UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-7272
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
HENRY EARL MILLER, a/k/a Stef, a/k/a Stefan,
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; 6:08-cv-70075-HFF)
Submitted: January 21, 2009 Decided: March 27, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Henry Earl Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying as successive his motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2006). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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 a certificate of appealability
and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Miller’s motions to
expedite, to appoint counsel, to instruct the district court to
accept filing of his § 2255 motion, for immediate release
pending appeal, for recusal and reassignment, for an evidentiary
hearing, for authorization to file a direct appeal, to amend
§ 2255 motion, and his complaint of violations of Castro v.
2
United States, 540 U.S. 375 (2003), and United States v.
Emmanuel, 288 F.3d 644 (4th Cir. 2002).
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
3