Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 12/20/2023

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

TERESA MILLER, Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee ______________________

2023-1872 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:23-cv-00525-DAT, Judge David A. Tapp. ______________________

ON MOTION ______________________

Before DYK, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Teresa Miller moves for leave to proceed in forma pau- peris (“IFP”), ECF Nos. 17 and 18. She also moves “for a stay or injunction in appeal,” ECF No. 21, and to allow ar- gument, ECF Nos. 7, 8, and 13. After consideration of the complaint, the judgment of the United States Court of Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 12/20/2023

2 MILLER v. US

Federal Claims, Ms. Miller’s briefs, and the motions pa- pers, we deny the motions and dismiss the appeal. Ms. Miller was convicted in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia of one count of unlawfully possessing a firearm that was uncov- ered by dog sniff during a traffic stop. See United States v. Miller, 54 F.4th 219, 223 (4th Cir. 2022). On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit va- cated her conviction and sentence, holding that the officer who conducted the traffic stop lacked a reasonable, articu- lable factual basis to extend the traffic stop to conduct the dog sniff. See id. The case was ultimately dismissed. In April 2023, Ms. Miller filed this suit at the Court of Federal Claims seeking $276,715.75 in damages to com- pensate for her conviction and imprisonment, including for the loss of employment and business revenue and for inju- ries related to her conviction and the conditions of her in- carceration. The Court of Federal Claims granted Ms. Miller’s motion for leave to proceed IFP, dismissed the com- plaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, certified under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that any appeal “would not be taken in good faith because, as alleged, [Ms. Miller]’s claims are outside the jurisdiction of this Court and incurable,” and directed the Clerk of that court to reject any future submis- sions in the case unless they comply with the court’s rules. ECF No. 19 at Appx4. This appeal followed. “[T]he court shall dismiss . . . if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . is frivolous.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). This appeal is frivolous. The Court of Federal Claims was clearly correct to dismiss Ms. Miller’s claim for unjust conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 1495 because she failed to plausibly allege that “her conviction has been reversed or set aside on the ground that [s]he is not guilty of the offense of which [s]he was convicted, or on new trial or rehearing [s]he was found not guilty of such offense, as appears from the record or certificate of the court setting Case: 23-1872 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 12/20/2023

MILLER v. US 3

aside or reversing such conviction, or that [s]he has been pardoned,” 28 U.S.C. § 2513(a)(1). Moreover, she has not received a certificate required under § 2513(b). * It was also clearly correct that Ms. Miller’s claims of emotional dis- tress and other associated harms from when she was incar- cerated “sound[] in tort” and thus outside the limited jurisdiction of the Court of Federal Claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1); U.S. Marine, Inc. v. United States, 722 F.3d 1360, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The appeal is dismissed. (2) All pending motions are denied. (3) Each side shall bear its own costs. FOR THE COURT

December 20, 2023 Date

* We must reject Ms. Miller’s request for this court to direct a judge to issue her a certificate of innocence. See ECF No. 4 at 2–3. She points to no authority, nor are we aware of any, providing this court with such ability.