United States of America v. Jeffrey Lewis Musgrove, a/k/a Fats

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Lewis Musgrove appealed the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. We
granted a certificate of appealability and the Government’s
unopposed motion to remand. 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
(2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that the district 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 and legal contentions are

-- 2 of 3 --

3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --