United States v. Chance A. Jackson

Opinions of the United
2008 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
12-11-2008
USA v. Chance A. Jackson
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 08-3007
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Chance A. Jackson" (2008). 2008 Decisions. Paper 124.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2008/124
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2008 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
HLD-16 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 08-3007
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
CHANCE A. JACKSON,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. No. 04-cr-00087-001)
District Judge: Honorable Jan E. Dubois
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
November 26, 2008
Before: SCIRICA, Chief Judge, WEIS and GARTH, Circuit Judges
(Filed: December 11, 2008)
_________
OPINION
_________
PER CURIAM.
Chance A. Jackson appeals pro se from the District Court’s post-judgment
order denying his motion for transcripts and other documents. We will summarily affirm.
1
See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
In May 2005, Jackson pleaded guilty to possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon and possession of cocaine base in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and
21 U.S.C. § 844(a), respectively, and the District Court sentenced him to 48 months
imprisonment. Jackson later filed a motion challenging his sentence under 28 U.S.C. §
2255. During that proceeding, the District Court entered an order noting that Jackson had
twice been provided with copies of his entire criminal file with the exception of two
hearing transcripts and directing the Deputy Clerk to provide Jackson with copies of those
transcripts as well. The District Court ultimately denied Jackson’s § 2255 motion on
November 15, 2006. Jackson appealed neither his sentence nor the denial of his § 2255
motion.
On May 19, 2008, Jackson filed the document at issue here, which again
requested transcripts and the production of “all documents” pertaining to his criminal
proceeding so that he could “produce a substantial and effective appeal.” The District
Court, construing the document as a motion for transcripts and other documents, denied it
as moot by order entered May 21, 2008. Jackson appealed.1
Although this Court notified Jackson that this appeal would be submitted
1
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the District Court’s post-
judgment order is effectively final. See Ohntrup v. Firearms Center, Inc., 802 F.2d 676,
678 (3d Cir. 1986). We review the District Court’s denial of a motion for transcripts and
other services at the Government’s expense for abuse of discretion. See United States v.
Roman, 121 F.3d 136, 143 (3d Cir. 1997).
2
for possible summary action, he has provided no response suggesting that his request was
not in fact moot. In addition, we are aware of no authority under which the United States
may be required to pay the cost of transcripts when no proceeding is pending. See United
States v. Horvath, 157 F.3d 131, 133 (2d Cir. 1998) (reviewing authority to the contrary).
See also Walker v. United States, 424 F.2d 278, 279 (5th Cir. 1970) (“A federal prisoner
is not entitled to obtain copies of court records at Government expense for the purpose of
searching the record for possible error.”). Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the
District Court’s order. Jackson’s motion for counsel and motion “for extended law
library privileges until late November 2008,” neither of which raises any substantive
claim or sets forth any conceivable basis for relief, are denied.
3