2015 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

1-21-2015

USA v. Jeremy Noyes

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015

This January is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2015 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Jeremy Noyes" (2015). 2015 Decisions. Paper 60.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015/60
DLD-085 NOT PRECEDENTIAL 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT 

___________ 

No. 14-2757 

___________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

JEREMY NOYES, 

 Appellant

____________________________________ 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Pennsylvania 

(W.D. Pa. Criminal No. 1:08-cr-00055) 

District Judge: Honorable David S. Cercone

____________________________________ 

Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant 

to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6 

January 15, 2015 

Before: FISHER, SHWARTZ and SLOVITER, Circuit Judges 

(Opinion filed: January 21, 2015) 

_________ 

OPINION*

_________ 

PER CURIAM 

 

*

 This disposition is not an opinion of the full court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

 Jeremy Noyes, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals from orders 

dismissing two post-judgment motions. We will affirm. 

In 2011, Noyes was convicted of the transportation, receipt, and possession of 

material depicting the sexual exploitation of a minor and the transportation of obscene 

material and was sentenced to 45 years in prison. We affirmed the conviction and 

sentence in 2012. See United States v. Noyes, 501 F. App’x 168 (3d Cir. 2012), cert. 

denied, 133 S. Ct. 1654 (2013). In March 2012, while his direct appeal was pending, 

Noyes filed a motion to correct the record, seeking to have the District Court change 

certain factual aspects of its memorandum opinion concerning the denial of a pre-trial 

motion to suppress evidence. About two years later, in February 2014, Noyes filed a 

motion for an order to show cause why the “chambers file” of the judge who presided 

over his trial should not be turned over to him so that he could prepare a motion to vacate 

sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. In April 2014, the District Court summarily 

denied both motions. This appeal followed. 

 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 to review a District Court’s 

post-judgment orders. See Isidor Paiewonsky Assoc., Inc. v. Sharp Properties, Inc., 998 

F.2d 145, 150 (3d Cir. 1993); Plymouth Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Illinois Mid-Continent Life 

Ins. Co., 378 F.2d 389, 391 (3d Cir. 1967). We may summarily dispose of an appeal 

when it clearly appears that no substantial question is presented, see 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; 

I.O.P. 10.6, and we may affirm on any ground supported by the record. See Tourscher v. 

McCullough, 184 F.3d 236, 240 (3d Cir. 1999). 
3

In his first motion, Noyes asked the District Court to change its opinion “to reflect 

the correct factual circumstances.” Specifically, Noyes objected to the “implication” that 

a thumb drive contained pornography and to the use of certain names and e-mail 

addresses “as if they were real, identifiable persons.” His stated reason for seeking the 

changes was that his direct appeal was pending before this Court. However, Noyes 

presented no support for his view of the facts or his notion that the District Court 

somehow made a clerical error in its descriptions.1 Furthermore, his appeal, which 

focused on sentencing and waiver of counsel issues, did not involve the challenged 

“facts” from the opinion denying his motion to suppress evidence. See Noyes, 501 F. 

App’x at 169-73. Under these circumstances, the District Court correctly denied the 

motion. 

In his second motion, Noyes sought to have the “chambers file” of the District 

Judge turned over to him so that he could “investigat[e] certain discrepancies” and 

complete his motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. He provided 

nothing further in support of his request. It appears that the motion is best construed as a 

 

1 Under Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a court may correct a 

“clerical error” in any part of the record. This has been narrowly interpreted to be an 

error that is “mechanical in nature,” and of the type that “a clerk or amanuensis might 

commit.” United States v. Penson, 526 F.3d 331, 335 (6th Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). 

Noyes essentially alleged that the District Court was mistaken about the facts, which does 

not fall within the narrow scope of “clerical error” that the court had the authority to 

correct under Rule 36. Furthermore, there does not appear to be any basis for Noyes’ 

allegations. The memorandum opinion does not state that pornography was found on the 

thumb drive and the references to certain names appear in verbatim quotes from 

affidavits of probable cause. 
4

discovery request, even though such requests are not directed to judges.2 Under Rule 6 of 

the Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings for the United States District Courts, discovery 

may be authorized for “good cause,” and “[a] party requesting discovery must provide 

reasons for the request.” Noyes made no specific allegations that would have enabled the 

court to determine whether the requested file was even relevant to the claims he sought to 

raise in his § 2255 motion. Instead, it appears that he sought to go on a fishing expedition 

for evidence, which does not constitute good cause for granting a discovery request. See 

Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir. 1994). The District Court therefore did 

not err by denying his motion. 

In his notice of appeal, Noyes contends that the District Court erred by denying his 

motions without offering a rationale and that this, and other alleged acts, were done to 

cover up misconduct by the trial judge. This extreme allegation is wholly devoid of 

support. Noyes’ motions were similarly baseless. Under the circumstances of this case, 

we perceive no error in the summary denial of them. For the foregoing reasons, we will 

summarily affirm the orders of the District Court. See 3d Cir. L.A.R. 27.4; I.O.P. 10.6. 

 

2 We further note that the nature and extent of Noyes’ request is unclear, given that he 

seeks a “chambers file.” The records of criminal proceedings are kept by the Clerk’s 

Office. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 55.