United States v. Manship , 340 F. App'x 914 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-4135
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JAMES RENWICK MANSHIP, SR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00022-AJT-1)
Submitted: July 7, 2009 Decided: July 16, 2009
Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Renwick Manship, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. George Zachary
Terwilliger, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Renwick Manship, Sr., appeals his convictions
for failing to wear his seat belt, driving with a broken brake
light, and violating national park visiting hours. Manship
argues that the magistrate judge and the district court violated
his due process rights by denying his request for a jury trial
and not allowing him to present evidence in his defense.
Further, Manship complains that he did not have access to the
audio recording of the proceedings before the magistrate judge
in preparing his appeals to the district court and to this
court. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
There is no right to a jury for offenses carrying a
maximum penalty of six or fewer months of imprisonment. Lewis
v. United States, 518 U.S. 322, 325-27 (1996); see 16 U.S.C. § 3(2006) (providing that violating the rules and regulations of
national parks is punishable by imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months). Therefore, Manship was not entitled to a
jury trial.
Manship argues that the district court and the
magistrate judge erred by not allowing him to present certain
evidence in his defense. During his trial, Manship noted he had
written the court asking to present audio evidence with his
laptop computer. The magistrate judge stated that he was
unaware of any request to use electronic equipment and Manship
2
had not made an adequate motion. At that time, the magistrate
judge overruled the request. The magistrate judge did not err
by declining to grant Manship’s request where Manship did not
formally file a motion or adequately explain in his informal
request that he desired to use his computer to present evidence
in his defense.
Nor did the district court err by declining to permit
the introduction of evidence. A defendant convicted by a
magistrate judge may appeal to the district court, but is not
entitled to a trial de novo. Rather, the scope of the appeal is
the same as in an appeal to the court of appeals from a judgment
entered by a district court. United States v. Bursey, 416 F.3d
301, 305 (4th Cir. 2005). The district court reviews the
magistrate judge’s findings of fact for clear error and reviews
issues of law de novo. Id. at 306. Manship was not entitled to
present new evidence in the district court because the district
court reviewed his appeal, and did not conduct a trial de novo.
Manship complains that the Government did not provide
a free copy of the audio recording of the proceedings before the
magistrate judge to aid him in preparing his appeals both before
the district court and this court. The Government must provide
the materials needed for an adequate defense or appeal of a
criminal defendant. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227
(1971). In Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458 (1969), the
3
Supreme Court extended the right to transcripts in appeals of
traffic and petty offenses. However, the Government does not
need to provide the transcript if it was not necessary for an
effective defense or appeal. See Britt, 404 U.S. at 227.
The two factors relevant to the determination of need
are “the value of the transcript to the defendant in connection
with the appeal or trial,” and “the availability of alternative
devices that would fulfill the same functions as a transcript.”
Id. Manship explained in his informal brief that he sought to
prove the park police perjured themselves by comparing his
recordings of the traffic stops with the recording of the police
testimony regarding those stops.
The district court did not err by charging a fee for
the audio recording. In forma pauperis status is a statutory
prerequisite to a grant of free transcripts, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 753(f) (2006), and Manship did not apply for that status in
district court until after the disposition of his appeal.
Moreover, a copy of the recording would not have aided Manship
in preparing his appeal to the district court because he could
not submit his recording of the traffic stops to compare with
the testimony.
Turning to Manship’s complaint that he did not receive
the audio recording of his trial in preparing his appeal to this
court, he submitted his informal brief without asking this court
4
for transcripts or an audio copy to be prepared at the
Government’s expense. Therefore, we did not have a timely
opportunity to consider his request.
Accordingly, we affirm Manship’s convictions. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5