US v. Jeffrey Musgrove, No. 13-7777 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7777 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY LEWIS MUSGROVE, a/k/a Fats, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:10-cr-00080-LO-1; 1:11-cv-00789-LO) Submitted: May 8, 2014 Decided: June 6, 2014 Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Lewis Musgrove, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley Pedersen, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Lewis Musgrove appealed the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. granted a certificate of appealability unopposed motion to remand. and the We Government s After an evidentiary hearing on the claims for which the certificate was granted, the district court denied relief. Musgrove appeals the court s order on remand denying § 2255 relief. The order entered on remand is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner this jurists reasonable satisfies would standard find that by demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Musgrove has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Musgrove s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.