Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03327/USCOURTS-ca8-06-03327-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Ronald E. Longstaff, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-3327

___________

Michael Jeffery, *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

v. * Southern District of Iowa.

*

Warden, John F. Ault, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: December 7, 2007

 Filed: May 5, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Kelly Jeffery was sentenced to life in prison after an Iowa jury

convicted him of kidnapping and robbery in violation of Iowa Code Ann. §§ 710.1(3),

710.2, 711.1(1), 711.2 (West 2003). He appeals the district court’s1

 judgment denying

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The issue is whether the Iowa Court of Appeals

rendered a decision that was not contrary to, or involved no unreasonable application

of, clearly established federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) (concerning habeas

claims adjudicated in state court); Iowa Code Ann. § 702.18 (West 2003) (defining

Appellate Case: 06-3327 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/05/2008 Entry ID: 3430131
-2-

serious injury); Jeffery v. Iowa, No. 04-0351, 2005 WL 67591, at **1-2 (Iowa Ct.

App. Jan. 13, 2005) (affirming denial of petition for postconviction relief); Morales

v. Ault, 476 F.3d 545, 549-50 & n.3 (8th Cir.) (when state prisoner files federal habeas

petition, court of appeals, like district court, undertakes limited and deferential review

of state court decisions adjudicating his claims; to establish ineffective assistance,

movant must demonstrate that his attorney’s performance was deficient and that he

suffered prejudice as result), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 177 (2007); Rodriguez v. United

States, 17 F.3d 225, 226 (8th Cir. 1994) (per curiam) (counsel not ineffective for

failing to raise meritless challenge).

Because Jeffery has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a

constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we decline to expand the certificate

of appealability granted by the district court to include Jeffery’s pro se arguments. 

We affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. Counsel’s

motion to withdraw is granted, and Jeffery’s motion to appoint new counsel is denied.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-3327 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/05/2008 Entry ID: 3430131