Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01157/USCOURTS-ca10-90-01157-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States of America
Appellee
Pedro A. Valdes
Appellant

Document Text:

, 

I 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

FILED 

Uaitcd States umrt of Appeals 

Tenth Cirrnit 

ov 1990 

&OBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. ) No. 90-1157 

PEDRO A. VALDES, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) (D.C. No. 88-CR-272) 

) ( D. Colo.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT * 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App . p . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This appeal is taken from an order of the district court 

denying the motion of defendant for a free transcript and court 

records pertaining to his conviction. 

On December 8, 1988, defendant was convicted in federal 

district court of (1) conspiracy to possess with intent to 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-1157 Document: 010110047845 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 1 
! ' 

distribute over 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. 

§ 846 and 18 u.s.c. § 2; (2) aiding and abetting in the 

distribution and possession of over 500 grams of cocaine in 

violation of 21 u.s.c. § 84l(a)(l) and 18 u.s.c. § 2; and (3) 

traveling in interstate commerce with intent to facilitate an 

unlawful business enterprise under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 2. 

Defendant's conviction was affirmed by this court on direct 

appeal. United States v. Valdes, Unpublished No. 89-1026 (10th 

Cir. Sept. 6, 1989). 

Proceeding prose, in forma pauperis, defendant filed a 

motion for court records and transcripts at government expense 

pursuant to 28 u.s.c. § 753(f), which motion was denied by the 

district court on May 16, 1990. On appeal defendant claims the 

district court's order denied his right to court access. We 

affirm. 

Provision of a free transcript 

requires a determination of whether 

in a criminal proceeding 

such a concession is 

warranted. There must be a proceeding pending upon which the 

court can base a determination of whether the defendant's claim 

for relief states a substantial question or is frivolous. 

28 u.s.c. § 753(f). 

This court has consistently denied such requests without a 

showing of need. An indigent state prisoner was not entitled to a 

transcript of state criminal proceedings for the purpose of 

searching for grounds for relief. Hines v. Baker, 422 F.2d 1002, 

1006-07 (10th Cir. 1970). A defendant was not entitled to have 

certain records and a transcript of trial proceedings furnished at 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-1157 Document: 010110047845 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 2 
✓ ' • 

government expense when the time for appeal had passed and no 

application for post-conviction relief was pending. Lingo v. 

United States, 320 F.2d 260, 260 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 

U.S. 958 (1963); Pearson v. United States, 313 F.2d 868, 868 (10th 

Cir. 1963). Where there was no pending appeal or order to which 

authority of statute could attach, a request for a transcript and 

other documents was properly denied. Prince v. United States, 312 

F.2d 252, 253 (10th Cir. 1962). See also Frison v. United States, 

322 F.2d 476, 476 (10th Cir. 1963). 

Nothing in our examination of the record, defendant's brief, 

or his arguments gives us any indication that defendant may be 

able to raise a substantial question which might entitle him to 

post-conviction relief. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURI.AM 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-1157 Document: 010110047845 Date Filed: 11/08/1990 Page: 3