United States v. David Miller

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6920 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-6920 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. DAVID HARRIS MILLER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Rossie David Alston, Jr., District Judge. (1:17-cr-00213-RDA-1; 1:23-cv- 01434-RDA) Submitted: January 30, 2026 Decided: February 24, 2026 Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Harris Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Tony Ray Roberts, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6920 Doc: 20 Filed: 02/24/2026 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: David Harris Miller seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and denying his motions for discovery and an evidentiary hearing. 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 as moot Miller’s motion to expedite decision (ECF No. 17), deny Miller’s motions for a certificate of appealability (ECF Nos. 6, 7, 18), 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 2