UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
MILTON LEWIS, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A prisoner has no absolute right to a transcript for collateral attack; materials are provided only after judicial certification of necessity for a non-frivolous case.
Appellant, convicted of drug violations, sought a transcript and other documents from his criminal conviction. The District Court denied his petition.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
[*380] PER CURIAM.
The appellant was convicted of drug violations on January 31, 1977, and his conviction was affirmed by this Court on direct criminal appeal. United States v. Lewis, 567 F. 2d 785 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 945, 98 S.Ct. 1527, 55 L.Ed.2d 542 (1978). On November 2,1978, the appellant sought certain documents from the District Court and the motion was denied November 27, 1978.
On March 5, 1979, the instant petition was filed. The appellant sought a transcript and other documents from his criminal conviction. On March 14, 1979, the District Court1 denied the petition and the appellant appeals asking this Court to reverse the District Court and provide him with a full stenographic transcript of his criminal conviction.
The issue on appeal is, thus, identical to that in United States v. Russell Losing, Jr., 601 F. 2d 351 (8th Cir. 1979), and we hold here, as we did there, “it is clear that a majority of the Court [the Supreme Court in United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 96 S.Ct. 2086, 48 L.Ed.2d 666 (1976)] concluded that a prisoner has no absolute "right to a transcript to assist him in the preparation of a collateral attack on his conviction, and that constitutional requirements are met by providing such materials only after judicial certification that they are required to decide the issues presented by a non-frivolous pending case.” United States v. Russell Losing, Jr., supra, 601 F. 2d at 353. See also United States v. Losing, 584 F. 2d 289 (8th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1081, 99 S.Ct. 865, 59 L.Ed.2d 51 (1979). Although the record indicates that the appellant seeks a transcript to attack his conviction, the government asserts, and the appellant does not disagree, that to date, no suit has been filed by the appellant challenging his conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The District Court’s dismissal should thus be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
. The Honorable Donald D. Alsop, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States ex rel. William Douglas Davidson v. Wilkinson, 618 F.2d 1215 (7th Cir. 1980)
-
Earnest Smith v. A.L. Lockhart, 882 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1989)
-
Sistrunk v. United States, 992 F.2d 258 (10th Cir. 1993)
Authorities Cited
- United States v. MacCOLLOM, 426 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1976)
- United States v. Cleora King, 567 F.2d 785 (8th Cir. 1977)
- Hennemeyer v. United States, 439 U.S. 1081 (U.S. 1979)
- Greene v. United States, 439 U.S. 1081 (U.S. 1979)
- United States v. Losing, 584 F.2d 289 (8th Cir. 1978)
- Lewis v. United States, 435 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1978)
- Chalk v. Secretary of Labor, 435 U.S. 945 (U.S. 1978)
- United States v. Losing, 601 F.2d 351 (8th Cir. 1979)