United States v. Milton Lewis

Eighth Circuit

United States v. Milton Lewis

605 F.2d 379, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12941

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJuly 24, 1979

Docket79-1247

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 605 F.2d 379 (United States v. Milton Lewis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Milton Lewis, 605 F.2d 379, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12941 (8th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

*380 PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of drug violations on January 31, 1977, and his conviction was affirmed by this Court on direct criminal appeal. United States v. Lewis, 567 F.2d 785 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 1527, 55 L.Ed.2d 542 (1978). On November 2,1978, the appellant sought certain documents from the District Court and the motion was denied November 27, 1978.

On March 5, 1979, the instant petition was filed. The appellant sought a transcript and other documents from his criminal conviction. On March 14, 1979, the District Court 1 denied the petition and the appellant appeals asking this Court to reverse the District Court and provide him with a full stenographic transcript of his criminal conviction.

The issue on appeal is, thus, identical to that in United States v. Russell Losing, Jr., 601 F.2d 351 (8th Cir. 1979), and we hold here, as we did there, “it is clear that a majority of the Court [the Supreme Court in United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976)] concluded that a prisoner has no absolute "right to a transcript to assist him in the preparation of a collateral attack on his conviction, and that constitutional requirements are met by providing such materials only after judicial certification that they are required to decide the issues presented by a non-frivolous pending case.” United States v. Russell Losing, Jr., supra, 601 F.2d at 353. See also United States v. Losing, 584 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1081, 99 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979). Although the record indicates that the appellant seeks a transcript to attack his conviction, the government asserts, and the appellant does not disagree, that to date, no suit has been filed by the appellant challenging his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court’s dismissal should thus be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

1

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*380 PER CURIAM.

The appellant was convicted of drug violations on January 31, 1977, and his conviction was affirmed by this Court on direct criminal appeal. United States v. Lewis, 567 F.2d 785 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 1527, 55 L.Ed.2d 542 (1978). On November 2,1978, the appellant sought certain documents from the District Court and the motion was denied November 27, 1978.

On March 5, 1979, the instant petition was filed. The appellant sought a transcript and other documents from his criminal conviction. On March 14, 1979, the District Court 1 denied the petition and the appellant appeals asking this Court to reverse the District Court and provide him with a full stenographic transcript of his criminal conviction.

The issue on appeal is, thus, identical to that in United States v. Russell Losing, Jr., 601 F.2d 351 (8th Cir. 1979), and we hold here, as we did there, “it is clear that a majority of the Court [the Supreme Court in United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976)] concluded that a prisoner has no absolute "right to a transcript to assist him in the preparation of a collateral attack on his conviction, and that constitutional requirements are met by providing such materials only after judicial certification that they are required to decide the issues presented by a non-frivolous pending case.” United States v. Russell Losing, Jr., supra, 601 F.2d at 353. See also United States v. Losing, 584 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1081, 99 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979). Although the record indicates that the appellant seeks a transcript to attack his conviction, the government asserts, and the appellant does not disagree, that to date, no suit has been filed by the appellant challenging his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court’s dismissal should thus be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

1

. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

605 F.2d 379, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 12941, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-milton-lewis-ca8-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack