United States v. Jermaine Ross , 677 F. App'x 129 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7507
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE ANTONIO ROSS, a/k/a Rock,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cr-00263-RJC-14)
Submitted: February 16, 2017 Decided: February 22, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jermaine Antonio Ross, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina;
Paul Bradford Taylor, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Antonio Ross appeals from the district court’s
order denying his request for free copies of his plea and
sentencing transcripts. Ross contends that his sentencing
transcript is necessary to support a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel in a yet-to-be-filed 28 U.S.C. § 2255(2012) motion. Because Ross has no pending § 2255 motion, and
he may adequately raise his ineffective assistance of counsel
claim in a § 2255 motion without the preparation of the
transcripts, we affirm the district court’s judgment. If Ross
files a § 2255 motion, the district court may then consider
whether an answer is required and whether transcript preparation
or some other form of discovery is necessary to decide Ross’
claim. See Rule 4(b), Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings
(requiring court to examine § 2255 motion and determine if
answer is required); Rule 5(c) (providing that court may order
government to furnish transcripts); Rule 6(a) (allowing district
court to authorize discovery for good cause). 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.
AFFIRMED
2