Court Opinion

ID: 4241540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-01 20:00:21.200537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:05.340930
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7119

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

LESLIE DOMINIC MUSGROVE,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Elkins.   John Preston Bailey, District Judge.         (2:11-cr-00016-JPB-RWT-11;
2:15-cv-00036-JPB-RWT)

Submitted: January 30, 2018                                       Decided: February 1, 2018

Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie Dominic Musgrove, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn Michael Adkins, Paul Thomas
Camilletti, Erin K. Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorneys, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia; Shawn Angus Morgan,
STEPTOE & JOHNSON PLLC, Bridgeport, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Leslie Dominic Musgrove seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2012) motion. The order 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). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner

must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the

motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at

484-85.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Musgrove has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2