United States v. Abdul-Majid ( 2004 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 29 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
No. 04-6221
v.
(D.C. No. CR-98-80-R)
(W.D. Okla.)
MOHAMMED ABDUL-MAJID,
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER
Before EBEL, MURPHY and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant-Appellant Mohammed Abdul-Majid appeals 1 from the district
court’s decision denying Majid’s motion asking the district court to direct the
court reporter to produce the original transcripts from his guilty plea and
sentencing proceedings. (Aplt. br. at 3, 5.) Majid contends that the transcripts
the court reporter previously produced are not accurate. (Id. at 5.)
This court, prior to Majid filing this transcript motion, denied Majid relief
from his conviction and dismissed his direct appeal (R. doc. 433.), and denied
Majid rehearing from that decision (Aplt. br. at 3.). Further, the United States
1
This court grants Majid’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma
pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915.
Supreme Court denied Majid’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Majid v. United
States, 125 S. Ct. 94 (Mem.) (Oct. 4, 2004). Therefore, Majid cannot characterize
his current appeal as a second direct appeal from his conviction. “Once the
defendant’s chance to appeal has been . . . exhausted, . . . we are entitled to
presume he stands fairly and finally convicted.” United States v. Frady, 456 U.S.
152, 164 (1982).
If Majid wants to challenge the accuracy of these transcripts and assert how
those inaccuracies have prejudiced him, see United States v. Taverna, 348 F.3d
873, 880 (10th Cir. 2003), Majid must now do so in a timely 28 U.S.C. § 2255motion. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (addressing requirements for timely
filing § 2255 motion). While Majid has previously filed such a § 2255 motion,
the district court dismissed that motion without prejudice to his refiling it because
at that time Majid’s direct appeal was still pending in this court.
For these reasons, therefore, we DISMISS this appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
David M. Ebel
Circuit Judge
-2-