DECISION AND ORDER

RICHARD J. ARCARA, District Judge.

On April 20, 2016, the Court sentenced the Defendant to an aggregate sentence of 240 months' imprisonment and three years' supervised release following his plea of guilty to racketeering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The Defendant did not appeal his conviction or sentence, nor did he file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The Defendant has, however, filed a pro se motion for a free transcript of his sentencing. See Docket No. 637. For the reasons stated below, the Defendant's motion is denied without prejudice.

DISCUSSION

The relief the Defendant seeks is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 753(f).1 In relevant part, § 753(f) provides:

As noted, the Defendant has yet to file a § 2255 petition challenging his conviction or sentence. Instead, he states that he needs his sentencing transcript because he is "preparing a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct sentence." Docket No. 637 at 1.

The Defendant's request is premature. The Second Circuit has made clear that both "the plain language and necessary operation" of § 753(f) require that "a motion for a free transcript . . . is not ripe until a § 2255 motion has been filed." United States v. Horvath, 157 F.3d 131, 132 (2d Cir. 1998). This is so for two reasons. First, § 753(f) refers to "proceedings brought under section 2255." (emphasis added). That, of course, has not yet happened in this case; the entire purpose of the Defendant's motion is to aid him in bringing a § 2255 proceeding. And second, § 753(f) requires a judge's certification "that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal." That, too, cannot happen until the Defendant files a § 2255 petition. Without such a filing, the Court has no way to evaluate "the issue presented" by the Defendant's petition. See Horvath, 157 F.3d at 132. Section 753(f) thus clearly prevents the Defendant from obtaining a free transcript until he files a § 2255 petition.2

The Court notes that, even without a transcript, the Defendant is not foreclosed from filing his § 2255 petition. A § 2255 petition "need only set forth the movant's claims of error generally." Id. (citing Rule 2(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings). As the Second Circuit has observed, "[p]resumably, a movant who can plead facts sufficient to obtain certification under § 753(f) will be able to satisfy the non-onerous pleading standards for a § 2255 motion." Id. at 133. See also id. (noting that the Second Circuit's interpretation of § 753(f) "dovetails with the standard for summary dismissal because `the motion and the files of the case' will not `conclusively' defeat a § 2255 motion if a transcript is needed to decide a non-frivolous issue presented by the motion") (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2255(b)).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Defendant's motion for a free transcript of his sentencing is DENIED without prejudice;

Further, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall mail a copy of this Decision and Order, together with an application to proceed in forma pauperis, to the Defendant.

SO ORDERED.