Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenny Paul HASKINS, a/k/a 2 Much, a/k/a Too Much, a/k/a Sean Bannister, a/k/a Paul, a/k/a Tanarri Reed, a/k/a Blake Deshawn, a/k/a Fat Boy, a/k/a Kirsten Kinard, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-27
Citations: 704 F. App'x 250
Docket Number: No. 17-6734
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenny Paul HASKINS, a/k/a 2 Much, a/k/a Too Much, a/k/a Sean Bannister, a/k/a Paul, a/k/a Tanarri Reed, a/k/a Blake Deshawn, a/k/a Fat Boy, a/k/a Kirsten Kinard, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 250–251

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenny Paul HASKINS, a/k/a 2 Much, a/k/a Too Much, a/k/a Sean Bannister, a/k/a Paul, a/k/a Tanarri Reed, a/k/a Blake Deshawn, a/k/a Fat Boy, a/k/a Kirsten Kinard, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6734
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 27, 2017
Lenny Paul Haskins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael John Frank, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lenny Paul Haskins appeals the district court's order denying his motion for transcripts after the court concluded that Haskins failed to make a showing of a particularized need for the transcripts. An appellant proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to a transcript at Government ex pense pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (2012), if a substantial question is presented. See Williams v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 811 (4th Cir. 2013). It is well settled in this Circuit that an indigent prisoner has no right to a transcript at Government expense merely to conduct a fishing expedition in an effort to find some flaw for appeal. Jones v. Superintendent, Va. State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152 (4th Cir. 1972).
Haskins asserts that he needs the transcripts to file his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and lists his proposed claims, but does not assert how or why the transcripts are necessary to file his § 2255 motion. Because Haskins failed to demonstrate a particularized need for the transcript, or present a substantial question, wé hold that the district court's denial of his request was proper. See Williams, 716 F.3d at 811.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED