US v. Jeffrey Crosby, No. 19-6664 (4th Cir. 2019)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-6664 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. JEFFREY ROY CROSBY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:96-cr-00361-CMC-1) Submitted: October 15, 2019 Decided: October 17, 2019 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Roy Crosby, Appellant Pro Se. Brook Bowers Andrews, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Roy Crosby appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to recuse a district judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See United States v. Cherry, 330 F.3d 658, 665 (4th Cir. 2003) (reviewing recusal decision for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Crosby, No. 4:96-cr-00361CMC-1 (D.S.C. Apr. 17, 2019); see also Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid basis for bias or partiality motion); United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The presiding judge is not required to recuse [her]self simply because of unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation.” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)). We deny Crosby’s motions for transcripts at government expense and for judicial notice. 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. AFFIRMED 2

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.