U.S. V. Edward Brown
This text of 2008 DNH 030 (U.S. V. Edward Brown) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
U.S. V. Edward Brown 06-CR-071-SM 02/01/08 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America.
v. Criminal No. 06-cr-071-02-SM Opinion No. 2008 DNH 030 Edward L. Brown
O R D E R
Defendant's letter to the Clerk of Court dated January 24,
2008 (document no. 224), will be taken as a motion seeking full
transcripts of his criminal trial at government expense. See
18 U.S.C. § 3006A(d); 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). The justification for
providing the requested transcripts at government expense offered
by defendant is: 1) he is indigent and no longer able to afford
to pay the customary fee; and 2) he anticipates '■'upcoming
litigation and the transcripts are essential to the case."
Assuming, without deciding, that defendant is in fact
currently indigent, his motion still must be denied. There are
two likely possibilities, in this context, regarding defendant's
perceived need for transcripts. The first is that he expects to
use them in pursuing direct appellate review of his conviction
and sentence. But that possibility has already been foreclosed.
On April 26, 2007, this court allowed his premature appeal after judgment entered, and the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit dismissed that appeal on October 7, 2007, due to
defendant's inexplicable failure to pursue it. His conviction
and sentence are now final and he has no need of transcripts
relative to a direct appeal that is no longer available to him.
The second reasonable possibility is that defendant wishes
to use the requested transcripts in connection with a petition
for relief under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2255. But in
order to secure free transcripts in support of a collateral
relief petition, petitioner must first allege more than simply
that his rights have been infringed. The burden is on
petitioner:
[T ]o come into court with his case, not simply to try to make one out. This does not mean, of course, with his full case, but he must show merit, not just personal opinion.
Ellis v. State of Maine. 448 F.2d 1325, 1327 (1st Cir. 1971).
Petitioner has not come close to meeting that modest burden
either in his motion for transcripts or his motion to vacate his
convictions and sentence (which he emphatically says is not
intended as a motion for § 2255 relief). And, under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), the court would be required.
2 before providing defendant with free transcripts, to certify that
defendant's motion for relief under § 2255 (which he denies
filing), or his appeal, is not frivolous, and the transcripts are
needed to decide an issue presented by the appeal or motion.
Defendant's motion, not filed under § 2255, is plainly frivolous,
and no further appeal is now available to defendant, so the
required certification cannot be made.
The motion for transcripts of defendant's criminal trial at
government expense (document no. 224) is denied.
SO ORDERED
Steven J / M c Auliffe "hief Judge
February 1, 200:
cc: William E. Morse, Esq. Elaine A. Brown, pro se Edward L. Brown, pro se U.S. Probation U.S. Marshal
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2008 DNH 030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-v-edward-brown-nhd-2008.