The procedural posture of this case is well-summarized in the Circuit’s summary 

affirmance of defendant’s conviction challenging, among other things, the voluntariness and 

validity of the guilty plea and sentence: 

Charod Becton appeals from a judgment entered on November 30, 

2018, by the United States District Court for the Southern District 

of New York (Castel, J.). On November 1, 2006, Becton pleaded 

guilty to a 15-count superseding indictment before the late Judge 

Owen. Becton later entered into a plea modification agreement 

before Judge Castel, pursuant to which the government agreed to 

dismiss one of the 15 counts. In the plea modification agreement, 

Becton waived his right to appeal any sentence of or below life plus 

five years’ imprisonment, and on November 28, 2018, Judge Castel 

sentenced Becton to life plus five years’ imprisonment. 

United States v. Henderson, No. 19-132-cr (2d Cir. Oct. 13, 2020) (summary order). 

Defendant now seeks the Case File/Work File and other tangible things in the 

possession of defense counsel. Defense counsel does not challenge defendant’s request in 

principle but notes that the files are in “at least” 18 banker’s boxes. As an incarcerated person, it 

is unlikely that the Bureau of Prisons would allow him to store 18 boxes at its facility. Defense 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

-----------------------------------------------------------x 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 02-cr-451 (PKC)

-against- ORDER 

 

CHAROD BECTON, 

Defendant. 

-----------------------------------------------------------x 

CASTEL, U.S.D.J.

Case 1:02-cr-00451-PKC Document 280 Filed 12/13/21 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

would not object to digitizing the files but that would entail considerable expense, and applies to 

the Court to have the project paid for with CJA Funds. 

Based on a standard size banker’s box, it is reasonable to estimate that the 18 

boxes contain approximately 45,000 sheets of paper. It is difficult to estimate the scanning costs 

because there are charges for handling, including un-stapling and re-stapling of documents. The 

costliest element of the exercise may be the time of the CJA lawyers in processing and arranging 

the production. 

The question is whether post-conviction copying of case files at CJA expense 

should be routinely granted without a particularized showing of need. The Court concludes that 

absent a showing of a particularized need, the exercise ought not be at CJA expense. The 

representation of defendant by the defense counsel holding the documents has concluded, as has 

the case against the defendant and his direct appeal. Defendant references a desire to file a 

section 2255 motion to vacate, modify or correct his sentence. The Court acknowledges that 

copying of files for the purpose of a section 2255 application may be appropriate. But, with a 

volume of documents such as exists in this case, the defendant has the initial burden of showing 

a particularized need. It is not sufficient for defendant to assert that there may be materials in the 

voluminous files relevant to a future motion. There is no hint in his letter application of the 

categories of documents that may be relevant to the yet-to-be described or filed motion. 

Because defendant presents no feasible way for him to examine the files while he 

is incarcerated and no particularized showing of need has been made which would justify the 

digitized copying of the entire file at CJA expense, the letter motions (Doc. 278, 279) are 

DENIED. 

Case 1:02-cr-00451-PKC Document 280 Filed 12/13/21 Page 2 of 3
- 3 - 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: New York, New York

 December 13, 2021 

COPY MAILED TO: Charod Becton, Register No. 53889-054, Atwater USP, Federal Way, 

Atwater CA 95301 

Case 1:02-cr-00451-PKC Document 280 Filed 12/13/21 Page 3 of 3