Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cr-00560/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cr-00560-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
USA
Plaintiff
Lance Williams
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LANCE STERLING WILLIAMS,

Defendant.

Case No. 10-cr-00560-SI-1 

ORDER RE TRANSCRIPT REQUEST

Re: Dkt. No. 107

Last month, defendant Lance Williams sent a letter requesting several documents from his 

criminal case, including a copy of the transcript of the sentencing hearing. Dkt. No. 104. The Court 

ordered the clerk to send to Williams a copy of the docket sheet, indictment, minutes of the 

sentencing hearing, and judgment, but explained that there was no sentencing transcript then in 

existence because the sentencing hearing had not been transcribed. Dkt. No. 106. Williams now 

returns with another request for the “‘Sentencing Transcripts’, needed for appellate purpose’s,” and 

attaches inmate account records showing he has no funds. Dkt. No. 107 (errors in source). The 

Court construes the document to be a request for the sentencing hearing to be transcribed at 

government expense. 

A court may order the preparation of a transcript at government expense only if “the trial 

judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is 

needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). A request for a 

transcript at government expense should not be granted unless the appeal presents a substantial 

question. Henderson v. United States, 734 F.2d 483, 484 (9th Cir. 1984). A district court 

accordingly may deny a motion for transcripts at government expense if the appellant fails to 

identify the grounds for appeal. See McKinney, 924 F.2d at 1512.

Case 3:10-cr-00560-SI Document 108 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Here, Williams fails to identify the ground(s) for the appeal he apparently wants to take from 

the judgment entered six years ago. Moreover, Williams’ plea agreement imposes a significant 

hurdle to any effort to pursue post-conviction relief. Per the June 13, 2013 plea agreement that 

Williams signed, he agreed to give up his right to appeal his conviction, judgment, any aspect of his 

sentence, and orders of this Court, Dkt. No. 94 ¶ 4, and not to file any collateral attacks on his 

conviction or sentence, including petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 or 28 U.S.C. § 2241, “except 

that [he] reserve[d his] right to claim that [his] counsel was ineffective in connection with the 

negotiation of this Agreement or the entry of [his] guilty plea.” Id. at ¶ 5. Williams’ letter does not 

identify an ineffective-assistance ground, or any other ground, for appeal. 

In light of the foregoing, Williams’ request to have his sentencing transcripts produced at 

government expense is DENIED. Dkt. No. 107.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 26, 2019 ______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cr-00560-SI Document 108 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 2