U.S. v. FOSTER, 1:09-cr-00013-MR-7. (2015)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20160104627
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 31, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 31, 2015
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Defendant's letter, which the Court construes as a motion to unseal [Doc. 803]. In her motion, the Defendant requests that the Court "unseal any and all documents" and "forward [her] copies of the documents so that [she] may be able to perfect an appeal effective[ly]." [Doc. 803 at 1]. The Defendant does not, however, identify the documents which she requests to be unsealed out of the 800-plus documents
Summary: ORDER MARTIN REIDINGER , District Judge . THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Defendant's letter, which the Court construes as a motion to unseal [Doc. 803]. In her motion, the Defendant requests that the Court "unseal any and all documents" and "forward [her] copies of the documents so that [she] may be able to perfect an appeal effective[ly]." [Doc. 803 at 1]. The Defendant does not, however, identify the documents which she requests to be unsealed out of the 800-plus documents ..
More
ORDER
MARTIN REIDINGER, District Judge.
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Defendant's letter, which the Court construes as a motion to unseal [Doc. 803].
In her motion, the Defendant requests that the Court "unseal any and all documents" and "forward [her] copies of the documents so that [she] may be able to perfect an appeal effective[ly]." [Doc. 803 at 1]. The Defendant does not, however, identify the documents which she requests to be unsealed out of the 800-plus documents in the record. Moreover, there are no matters pending from which the Defendant could perfect a timely appeal. The Defendant therefore has failed to demonstrate a particularized need for the requested pleadings. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 326-27 (1976) (holding that federal inmates are not entitled to transcripts at Government expense absent some showing of a particularized need); Jones v. Superintendent, Va. State Farm, 460 F.2d 150, 152 (4th Cir. 1972) ("[A]n indigent is not entitled to a transcript at government expense without a showing of the need, merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw.") (citation omitted). For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendant's motion to unseal.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's letter, which the Court construes as a motion to unseal [Doc. 803], is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
