United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SENTENCING
TRANSCRIPTS [#636] AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
TO FILE APPEAL [#637]
PAGE HOOD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
April 15, 2019, Defendant filed two motions: (1) a
“Motion to Furnish Trial Transcripts/Sentencing
Transcripts and other Pre-Trial Documents Without Costs
Pursuant to Title 28 USC 753(f) & Title 18 USC 3006(A)
Criminal Justice Act” (“Motion for
Transcripts”) [Dkt. No. 636]; and (2) a “Motion
to Terminate Attorney for Ineffectiveness and Proceed Pro Se
and For Extension of Time to File Any Type of Meaningful
Motions for Appeal of Which Entire Transcripts are Need[ed]
with All Documentations on this Case for Needed Procedures of
the Appeal Process.” (“Motion for
Extension”) [Dkt. No. 637]. The Government did not file
a response to either motion.
and many others were charged in a RICO indictment, and
Defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to Count 1 (RICO
conspiracy) and Count 7 (Using a Weapon During and in
Relation to a Crime of Violence) of the Superseding
Indictment. [Dkt. No. 355] The guideline range set forth in
the Plea Agreement was 360 months - life, followed by a
mandatory minimum of 84 months imprisonment. Id. at
Paragraph 2.B. Defendant was sentenced to a total
imprisonment term of 288 months (204 months on Count 1 and 84
months on Count 7, to be served consecutively). [Dkt. No.
552] Defendant's Plea Agreement provided for a waiver of
appeal if he was sentenced below 360 months, [Dkt. No. 355,
at Paragraph 7], and Defendant did not file an appeal.
2018, Defendant filed a “Motion in Request of
Sentencing Transcripts Pursuant to C.J.A. 18 U.S.C.S. §
3006(A)” (the “2018 Motion”). [Dkt. No.
614] In the 2018 Motion, Defendant asserted that he
“desires to file a post-conviction motion with this
Honorable Court, and therefore, the [sentencing] transcripts
are direly needed to perfect said motion.” Id.
at PgID 6076. Defendant relied on 28 U.S.C. § 753 and 18
U.S.C. § 3006A to obtain his sentencing transcripts. The
Court ultimately denied the 2018 Motion, as discussed below.
[Dkt. No. 617, PgID 6115]
Motion for Transcripts
reviewing the Motion for Transcripts, the Court concludes
that the Motion for Transcripts is, in essence, a reiteration
of the 2018 Motion. In both the Motion for Transcripts and
the 2018 Motion, Defendant seeks to have the Court order the
Government to furnish Defendant transcripts for proceedings
before this Court. As the Court stated in the 2018 Motion:
[28 U.S.C. § 753(f)] provides that the Government may
pay fees for transcripts to persons proceeding in forma
pauperis under the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C.
§ 3006A “if the trial judge . . . certifies that
the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript
is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or
appeal.” 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). U n l e s s t h e
Government pays for the transcripts, the court reporter may
charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the
parties and may require any party requesting a transcript to
prepay the estimated in advance. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).
In this matter, Defendant pled guilty and was sentenced well
below the guideline sentence set forth in his Plea Agreement.
Defendant waived his right to appeal his conviction or
sentence (because it did “not exceed the maximum
allowed by . . . [the plea] agreement (360
months)), [Dkt. No. 355, at Paragraph 7 (emphasis in
original)] so any challenge to his conviction or sentence
would be frivolous. In addition, Defendant has not specified
the substance of any motion he intends to file, so it is not
possible for the Court to find that the sentencing transcript
Accordingly, the Court holds that Defendant is not entitled
to have a transcript of his sentencing paid by the Government
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f). Should Defendant desire
to seek a transcript from the court reporter, a request must
be made in writing and addressed to the court reporter as
required under E.D. Mich. LR 80.1. Any payment arrangements
must be made with the court reporter as required under 28
U.S.C. § 753(f).
[Dkt. No. 617, PgID 6114-15 (emphasis in original)] For the
same reasons set forth in the 2018 Motion, the Court DENIES
the Motion for Transcripts.
Motion for Extension
the caption of the Motion for Extension (which seems to focus
on terminating an attorney and extending the time to file an
appeal), the main relief requested in the Motion for
Extension is for the production of transcripts related to the
case, at the Government's cost. The following statements
evidence that basis of the Motion for Extension: (a)
“Appeal process can not be meaningful without his full
transcripts which are needed concerning this case so a
remedy can be obtained, which his entire transcripts, docket,
...;” (b) Defendant “has also repeatedly
requested that appellee/petitioner attorney(s) . . . provide
the above stated documents, and information, . . . which is
not being provided but rather refused against”
Defendant; and (c) ...