United States of America v. Miles Musgraves

United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Submitted June 30, 2023*
Decided July 5, 2023
Before
FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge
MICHAEL Y. SCUDDER, Circuit Judge
DORIS L. PRYOR, Circuit Judge
No. 22-2091
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
MILES MUSGRAVES,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois.
No. 3:13-cr-30276-NJR-1
Nancy J. Rosenstengel,
Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Miles Musgraves, a federal prisoner, appeals the denial of his second motion for
compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). Because the district court
correctly concluded that a witness recanting his testimony was not a ground for
compassionate release, we affirm.
* We have agreed to decide the case without oral argument because the briefs and
record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and oral argument would not
significantly aid the court. F ED. R. A PP . P. 34(a)(2)(C).
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION
To be cited only in accordance with F ED. R. APP . P. 32.1

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 22-2091 Page 2
Musgraves is serving a 20-year prison sentence. In 2015, a jury found him guilty
of five drug and firearm offenses. On appeal, we vacated three convictions but affirmed
two. See United States v. Musgraves, 831 F.3d 454 (7th Cir. 2016). He received the same
sentence on remand, and we upheld it in his second appeal. United States v. Musgraves,
883 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2018).
Since then, Musgraves has repeatedly challenged his criminal convictions and
sentence. In a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Musgraves asserted that the search
warrant for his home (which he had challenged in a pretrial suppression motion in
2014) was based on false information from a witness, Kenneth Boner, whose statements
supported the search-warrant application. Musgraves stated that Boner admitted in a
new affidavit that police had coerced his previous statement that he witnessed a drug
transaction at Musgraves’s house; Boner’s mother stated the same in an affidavit of her
own. Musgraves v. United States, No. 19-548-NJR, Doc. 1 (N.D. Ill. May 28, 2019).
Musgraves did not submit the affidavits, and the district court denied the motion,
concluding that his search-warrant claim was procedurally defaulted and that the
unsupported statements about the recantation were insufficient to excuse the default.
The court also denied Musgraves’s two motions to reconsider, explaining that the
Boners’ affidavits, which Musgraves had by then submitted, were from 2016 and 2018
and could have been raised either in Musgraves’ direct appeals or in the § 2255 motion.
The court further decided that the recantation, if believed, could not affect the other
facts that supported the probable-cause determination. Musgraves v. United States,
No. 19-548-NJR, Doc. 26. We denied Musgraves’s request for a certificate of
appealability. Musgraves v. United States, No. 20-3098 (7th Cir. Aug. 2, 2021).
In May 2020, Musgraves moved for compassionate release, asserting, in part, that
the new affidavits demonstrate that he was convicted based on evidence obtained
through an invalid search warrant, which, he argued, was an extraordinary and
compelling reason for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The court
denied the motion, and we affirmed, noting that Musgraves’s challenge “plainly speaks
to the validity of his conviction.” United States v. Musgraves, 840 F. App’x 11, 13 (7th Cir.
2021). And because “the correct vehicle to challenge a conviction or sentence is 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 or, in rare circumstances, 28 U.S.C. § 2241,” a compassionate-release motion
could not be used to raise this argument. Id.
In November 2021, Musgraves filed a second motion for compassionate release.
He argued, in relevant part, that the district court should “revisit” his sentence because
the sentencing judge (since retired) would have imposed a lower prison term if the
Boners’ affidavits had been available. Denying the motion, the district court again
stated that this evidence was not grounds for a motion for compassionate release.

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 22-2091 Page 3
On appeal, Musgraves once again argues that Kenneth Boner’s recantation is an
extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release. But the district court
properly denied Musgraves’s motion because, despite his insistence to the contrary, his
argument necessarily implicates the validity of his conviction. See United States v. Von
Vader, 58 F.4th 369, 371 (7th Cir. 2023); United States v. Brock, 39 F.4th 462, 466 (7th Cir.
2022); United States v. King, 40 F.4th 594, 595 (7th Cir. 2022). True, these decisions refer to
“purely legal” contentions that arise after sentencing, and the development here is
factual. But a recantation is not akin to “some new fact about an inmate’s health or
family status.” See Von Vader, 58 F.4th at 371. It still falls within the purview of § 2255,
which creates an avenue of relief with distinct requirements, including time limits. See
United States v. Williams, 62 F.4th 391, 392 (7th Cir. 2023).
Musgraves has now raised his argument about the recanted testimony in a half-
dozen motions seeking relief from his sentence. Repeating the argument yet again in the
future will not lead to a different result, and so future motions on the same grounds
may be summarily denied.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --