HOGAN
v.
UNITED STATES
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.
The court held that a petitioner is not entitled to a copy of a sound recording at government expense under 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) when the transcript is available and the petitioner has not demonstrated willingness to pay for a copy.
Petitioner sought reconsideration of orders denying his requests for a copy of a court reporter's original sound tape and to expedite that motion. The…
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.
Petitioner Raimundo Hogan moves for reconsideration (Civ. Doc. 24) of the Order of August 7, 2020 (Civ. Doc. 23), in which a Magistrate Judge denied Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Copy of Court Reporter’s Original Sound Tape Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) (Civ. Doc. 21). Petitioner also moves for reconsideration (Civ. Doc. 16) of the Magistrate Judge’s Order (Civ. Doc. 15) denying his Motion to Expedite (Civ. Doc. 14). The Court construes both motions as objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a).1
Hansen v. United States, 956 F. 2d 245 (11th Cir. 1992). In Hansen, the Eleventh Circuit held that § 753(b) entitled a § 2255 movant access to the original sound tape of his sentencing hearing, where the transcript was allegedly incomplete, the recording was necessary to prove one of the movant’s
claims, and the movant offered to pay for the recording. 956 F. 2d at 248. However, the Eleventh Circuit qualified its opinion: Our holding in this case is specifically limited to the situation when a prisoner seeks access to court files, as opposed to the situations when a prisoner seeks, at government expense, either copies of court files or transcripts of proceedings. Hansen has expressed his willingness to pay for any copies he wishes to make of the records he seeks. Our holding governs only his access to these records.
Id. (emphasis in original) (footnote omitted). In contrast to Hansen, Petitioner does not merely seek access to a sound recording. Rather, Petitioner apparently seeks to obtain a copy of a sound recording without cost, since he has given no indication he is willing to pay for a copy. (Civ. Doc. 21).2 However, § 753(b) does not provide for the copying of sound recordings at the government’s expense.3
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN
United States District Judge Ie 19 C: Raimundo Hogan Counsel of Record
about what the sound recording would show is dubious because during the hearing itself, Petitioner told the Court that he wished to withdraw the letter, that he knew Ms. Yazgi would assist him with “a proper defense,” and that he wished to proceed to trial with Ms. Yazgi. (Crim. Doc. 8-93, Transcript of In Camera Hearing at 2, 4).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hogan v. United States, 2015 WL 13650915 (M.D. Fla. 2020)…denying a copy of the sound tapes (Civ. Doc. 25), “[a] notice of appeal filed with respect to a non-appealable non- final order does not have any effect on the district court's jurisdiction.” Jackson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 3:12-cv-957-J-39PDB, 2015 WL 13650915, at *2 (M.D. Fla. May 8, 2015) (citing United States v. Riolo, 398 F. App’x 568, 571 (11th Cir. 2010)). An order denying a § 2255 movant copies of court files is such a non-final order. See United States v. Pace, 111 F. App’x 768, 768-69 (5th Cir. 2…
Authorities Cited
- Hogan v. United States, 2015 WL 13650915 (M.D. Fla. 2020)