Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03178/USCOURTS-ca10-91-03178-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael E. McCarthy
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS UniJsJ~~<?Rppeals Tenth C1rcu1t TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

MICHAELE. McCARTHY, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

OCT 2 1 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 91-3178 

(D.C. No. 84-20044-02) 

(D. Kansas) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and BALDOCK, 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. The case is therefore ordered submi tted without oral argument. 

Appellant Michael E. McCarthy appeals the district court's 

denial of his motion to be provided a free copy of trial 

t ranscripts in this case, in which he was convicted of armed 

robbery of a federally insured credit union in violation of 18 

U.S.C. § 2113(a) and (d). His conviction was affirmed by this 

* 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: 91-3178 Document: 010110091403 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 1 
court. United States v. McCarthy, No. 84-2257 (10th Cir. July 24, 

1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 952 (1985). Appellant asserts that 

the district court was biased against him and sealed portions of 

the trial court transcript. The district court's order denies 

having sealed 1 

any such records. The district court found the 

assertions of judicial bias, prejudice and impartiality to be 

"bald" and frivolous. 

Appellant's motion is simply entitled "Motion to Obtain Court 

Documents." However, because it contains allegations that the 

district court was biased and prejudiced, we construe the motion 

as both a request for a trial transcript and a§ 2255 motion to 

vacate sentence. 

Although an indigent defendant taking a direct appeal of his 

conviction is entitled to a transcript, it seems quite apparent 

from the record2 and the issues decided by this court in affirming 

the conviction that a transcript was provided during the direct 

appeal and that appellant's counsel had full access to it. An 

1 Perhaps the confusion on sealing is because the presentence 

report is always sealed. See 10th Cir. R. ll.2(e) ( "Presentence 

reports are confidential .... the district court clerk shall 

separate it from other portions of the record and enclose it in an 

envelope clearly marked 'Presentence Report--'Sealed.'"); D. Kan. 

Rule 305 (presentence reports are confidential court documents). 

The presentence report, of course, has nothing to do with the 

trial transcript appellant seeks. 

2 The district court docket, which is part of the record in this 

appeal, includes two entries made on October 18, 1984, that show 

that a two-volume transcript of the trial was received. A later 

entry verifies payment to the court reporter for a transcript for 

defendant McCarthy. The record also includes a letter to 

appellant from his trial and appellate counsel stating that the 

transcripts are on file with the district court and that counsel 

does not have them in his possession. This statement suggests 

that appellant's counsel did have the transcripts earlier. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 91-3178 Document: 010110091403 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 2 
indigent prisoner is entitled to a free transcript to support 

collateral proceedings under 28 u.s.c. § 2255 "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); cf. Jackson 

v. Turner, 442 F.2d 1303, 1305 (10th Cir. 1971) ("the rule in this 

circuit with respect to federal habeas corpus proceedings is that 

petitioners who seek a transcript 

conclusory allegations"). 

. must do more than allege 

We agree with the district court that the motion contains 

nothing more than a conclusory allegation of bias and prejudice, 

and appellant has not established a need for a transcript at 

government expense. Hence we must AFFIRM the district court's 

order denying the transcript. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

Entered for the Court 

James K. Logan 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 91-3178 Document: 010110091403 Date Filed: 10/21/1991 Page: 3