Court Opinion

ID: 9931228
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 18:00:39.300128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:35.189732
License: Public Domain

ALD-057                                           NOT PRECEDENTIAL
                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
                                 ___________

                                      No. 23-2769
                                      ___________

                            UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                                             v.

                                  ADAM SCOTT,
                                             Appellant
                       ____________________________________

                     On Appeal from the United States District Court
                         for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
                       (E.D. Pa. Criminal No. 2:10-cr-00677-001)
                     District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
                      ____________________________________

                        Submitted for Possible Summary Action
                   Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
                                    January 18, 2024

    Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges

                             (Opinion filed February 8, 2024)
                                       _________

                                        OPINION *
                                        _________

PER CURIAM

       Pro se appellant Adam Scott appeals from the District Court’s order denying his

post-judgment “due process protection” motion. For the reasons that follow, we will

*
 This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.
summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.

       In 2012, Scott was convicted of cocaine distribution and related firearms offenses.

In the years since, Scott has filed numerous post-judgment motions in the District Court

relating to his conviction. In August 2023, Scott filed a motion citing Federal Rule of

Criminal Procedure 5(f), requesting that the District Court issue an order requiring the

Government to acknowledge its disclosure obligations under the Due Process Protections

Act. He claimed that the Government never turned over various surveillance and wiretap

evidence during his prosecution.

       The Government responded, noting that Rule 5(f) is applicable at the beginning of

a defendant’s criminal proceedings, “on the first scheduled court date when both

prosecutor and defense counsel are present.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f)(1). The Government

also included an acknowledgment of its discovery obligations. The District Court denied

Scott’s motion for the reasons stated by the Government. Scott timely appealed. 1

       Under any conceivable standard of review, we discern no error in the District

Court’s decision. As the Government noted, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f)

provides that at the start of an individual’s criminal proceedings, the trial judge must

“issue an oral and written order to prosecution and defense counsel that confirms the

disclosure obligation of the prosecutor . . . and the possible consequences of violating

1
  We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may summarily affirm a
district court’s order where the “appeal does not present a substantial question.” Murray
v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).
                                             2
such order under applicable law.” Scott was convicted more than a decade ago; this rule

does not provide an avenue for him to seek additional post-judgment discovery. And in

any event, the Government has re-affirmed its discovery obligations. Nothing further is

required by the rule, even if it could somehow apply in this context.

       Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s decision.

                                             3