2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 12-11-2008 

# U SA v . C h ance A. Ja ckson P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3007

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . C h anc e A. J a ck s on" (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 124. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1241

H L D - 16 NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 3007

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. CH ANC E A. J AC KS ON, A ppel l ant

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( E . D . Pa. N o. 04- cr - 00087- 001) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le J a n E . D u b o is

____________________________________ Subm i t t ed forPoss i bl e Sum m aryA ct i on P u rs u a n t to T h ir d C ir c u it L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

N ovember26, 2008 B efore: S C IR IC A , C hief J ud ge, W E IS and G A R T H , C i rcui tJudg es (F il ed : D ec em b er 1 1 , 2 0 0 8 )

_________ OP I NI ON

_________ P E R C U R I A M.

C hance A . J acks on appea l s pr o s e fr om the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s pos t - j udgm ent o rd e r d e n y in g h is m o tio n f o r t ra n s c ri p ts a n d o th e r d o c u m e n ts . W e w ill s u m m a ri ly af f ir m .W e h a v e ju risd ictio n u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 b e c a u se th e D istric t C o u rt’s p o st- 1 j udgm entor deri s eff

ect i vel yfi nal . See O hnt rup v. Fi r earm s C ent er , I nc. , 802 F. 2d 676, 678 ( 3d C i r . 1986) . W e r evi ew t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of a mot i on fortr ans cr i pt s and ot hers ervi ces att he G overnm ent ’ s expens e forabus e of di s cr et i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. R o m an , 1 2 1 F . 3 d 1 3 6 , 1 4 3 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). 2 S e e 3 d C ir . L A R 2 7 .4 a n d I.O .P . 1 0 .6

I n M a y 2 0 0 5 , J a c k s o n p l e a d e d g u i l t y t o p o s s e s s i o n o f a f i r e a r m b y a convi ct ed fe l on and pos s es s i on of coc ai ne bas e i n vi ol at i on of 18 U . S. C . § 922( g) ( 1) and 21 U . S. C . § 844( a) , r es pect i vel y , and the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d hi m t o 48 m ont hs im p ri s o n m e n t. J a c k s o n la te r f ile d a m o tio n c h a lle n g in g h is s e n te n c e u n d e r 2 8 U .S .C . § 2255. D ur i ng t hatpr ocee di ng, t he D i s t r i ctC our tent er ed an or dernot i ng thatJ acks on had t wi c e b e e n p r o v i d e d wi t h c o p i e s o f h i s e n t i r e c r i mi n a l f

i l e wi t h th e e x c e p t i o n o f two heari ng t ranscr i pts and dir ect i ng t he D epu t yC l erk t o p rovi de Jack son w i t h co pies of those t r ans cr i pt s as w el l . T he D i s t r i ctC our tul t i m at el ydeni ed J acks on’ s § 2255 m ot i on on N ovember15, 2006. J acks on appea l ed nei t herhi s s ent ence northe deni al of hi s § 2255 m ot i on. O n M a y1 9 , 2 0 0 8 , Ja c k so n f iled th e d o c u m e n t at iss u e h e re , w h ich a g a in r eques t ed tr ans cr i pt s and the pr oduct i on of “a l l document s ” pert ai ni ng t o hi s cr i m i nal pr ocee di ng s o t hathe coul d “pr oduce a s ubs t ant i al and ef fec t i ve appe al . ” The D i s t r i ct C o u rt, co n stru in g th e d o c u m e n t as a m o tio n f o r tra n sc rip ts a n d o th e r d o c u m e n ts, d e n ied it as m ootbyor derent er ed M ay21, 2008. J acks on appea l ed. 1

A l t hough t hi s C our tnot i fi ed J acks on thatthi s appea l w oul d be s ubm i t t edforpos s i bl e s um m aryact i on, he has pr ovi ded no r es pons e s ugges t i ng thathi s r eques tw as

noti n fac tm oot . I n addi t i on, w e ar e aw ar e of no a uthor i t yunderw hi ch the U ni t ed St at es m aybe r equi r ed t o payt he cos tof tr ans cr i pt s w hen no pr ocee di ng i s pendi ng. See U ni t ed S ta te s v . H o rv a th , 1 5 7 F .3 d 1 3 1 , 1 3 3 (2 d C ir . 1 9 9 8 ) ( re v ie w in g a u th o ri ty to th e c o n tr a ry). See al s o W al kerv. U ni t ed St at es , 424 F. 2d 278, 279 ( 5th C i r . 1970) ( “A fede r al pr i s oner i s notent i t l ed t o obt ai n copi es of courtr ecor ds atG overnm entexpens e forthe purpos e of s ear chi ng t he r ecor d forpos s i bl e err or . ”) . A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l s um m ar i l yaff i r m the D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s or der . J acks on’ s m ot i on forcouns el and mot i on “forext ended l aw l i br arypr i vi l eges unt i l l at e N ovember2008, ” nei therof w hi ch r ai s es anys ubs t ant i ve cl ai m ors et s for t h anyconce i vabl e bas i s forr el i ef, ar e deni ed.

3