United States v. Webb

54 F. App'x 588
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in United States v. Webb. Read the opinion of the Court — 20 F. App'x 182
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided January 23, 2003·No. 02-7447·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William Eugene Webb appeals from the district court’s order affirming the order of the magistrate judge denying his motion for production of a trial transcript at Government expense. Webb seeks the transcript to aid his preparation of a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. However, as there is no § 2255 motion pending, Webb is not entitled to a free transcript. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2000); see also United States v. Horvath, 157 F.3d 131, 132-33 (2nd Cir. 1998). The district court will examine the file and records of the case when the motion is filed. Rule 4(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Webb is not required to set forth his claims in great detail in filing the § 2255 motion. Rule 2(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Therefore, we affirm the order of the district court. 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.

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

United States v. Webb, 54 F. App'x 588 (4th Cir. 2003).

54 F. App'x 588 (United States v. Webb) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Richard Horvath
157 F.3d 131 (Second Circuit, 1998)