Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03268/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03268-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
William Daniel Nelson
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

.... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

United State::. eo·,rt OL Appeals 11",..,.,,.1.i.+ ,..;_,,.,?if-. 

APR 1 61991 

ROBER'I1 L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 90-3268 

v. 

WILLIAM DANIEL NELSON, 

aka Daniel Nelson, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

(D.C. No. 89-20081-01) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Before LOGAN, MOORE, and BALDOCK, Circuit Judges. 

William Daniel Nelson appeals from the district court's 

denial of his motion requesting that the court furnish "Rule 16 

Materials, Jencks Evidence and Transcripts." He argues that 28 

u.s.c. § 2250 and his "6th and 14th Amendment Rights to: the due 

*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: 90-3268 Document: 010110034187 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 1 
process of law, and the equal protection of the law" compel the 

district court to provide him at no cost with the documents 

requested. The district court held that, since Mr. Nelson is 

represented on appeal by counsel who has full access to all 

requested materials, "there is simply no authority requiring that 

the defendant be furnished a copy of such material for his own 

use." 

Mr. Nelson was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to possess 

cocaine base with intent to distribute and other drug trafficking 

offenses, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. As far as we 

can ascertain from the record, Mr. Nelson has been represented at 

every stage of trial and appeal by counsel. Mr. Nelson nowhere 

disputes this fact, other than by implication by asserting that 

his various post-conviction motions were filed "pro se." Mr. 

Nelson has filed two "prose" requests for the district court to 

provide at no cost certain transcripts and materials from his 

trial. 

The May 24, 1990 denial of his first request for "transcripts 

and all records" was not appealed in a timely manner. The second 

motion, filed August 6, 1990, and denied on August 8, 1990, 

requested "Rule 16 Materials, Jencks Evidence and Transcripts." 

We do not have jurisdiction to consider Mr. Nelson's request for 

information identified in the motion denied on May 24, 1990, and 

the request for similar information contained in the August 6, 

1990 motion due to the untimely filing of the appeal concerning 

these materials. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). A litigant cannot avoid 

appeal deadlines by simply refiling a similar motion. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3268 Document: 010110034187 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 2 
Concerning the remainder of those materials requested in the 

August 6, 1990 motion, but not named in the earlier motion, we 

hold that the district court did not err in concluding that Mr. 

Nelson does not have a right to these materials as long as he is 

represented by counsel. See United States v. Freedman, 688 F.2d 

1364 (11th Cir. 1982) (in the context of discovery, a defendant 

has no right to be provided extra copies of trial documents). 

This court has consistently held that a habeas corpus petitioner 

is entitled to transcripts and other trial materials at no cost 

only upon a showing of need. Hines v. Baker, 422 F.2d 1002, 1006 

n.9 (10th Cir. 1970). Here, Mr. Nelson is already represented by 

counsel who has full access to the requested materials, and 

therefore fails to make the requisite showing of need. Also, in 

Hines we held that an indigent habeas corpus petitioner does not 

have the right to have transcripts and other trial materials 

furnished at no cost simply for "exploratory use in collateral 

federal proceedings." Id. at 1007. 

AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

John P. Moore 

Circuit Judge 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3268 Document: 010110034187 Date Filed: 04/16/1991 Page: 3