DEBNAM v. U.S., 5:06-CR-98-D (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141219b51
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 18, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 18, 2014
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On August 25, 2014, Brian Rashad Debnam, appearing prose, filed a motion for replacement of documents [D .E. 86]. Debnam requests transcripts pertaining to his case. Although a court reporter transcribed Debnam's arraignment and sentencing, the court reporter did not prepare a transcript. No one ordered one. "An indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of need, merely to comb the record in the hope of dis
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge. On August 25, 2014, Brian Rashad Debnam, appearing prose, filed a motion for replacement of documents [D .E. 86]. Debnam requests transcripts pertaining to his case. Although a court reporter transcribed Debnam's arraignment and sentencing, the court reporter did not prepare a transcript. No one ordered one. "An indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of need, merely to comb the record in the hope of disc..
More
ORDER
JAMES C. DEVER, III, Chief District Judge.
On August 25, 2014, Brian Rashad Debnam, appearing prose, filed a motion for replacement of documents [D .E. 86]. Debnam requests transcripts pertaining to his case. Although a court reporter transcribed Debnam's arraignment and sentencing, the court reporter did not prepare a transcript. No one ordered one.
"An indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of need, merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw." United States v. Shoaf, 341 F.2d 832, 833-34 (4th Cir. 1964). Debnam has failed to show a particularized need for the transcripts in connection with his attempt to convince the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to issue a certificate of appealability concerning this court's order of July 30, 2014, dismissing his section 2255 motion as untimely. See [D.E. 81]. Thus, to the extent Debnam's letter could be construed as a motion to obtain transcripts without charge, the motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
