USA v. Jeffrey Gola
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Jeffrey Thomas Gola. Decision: Affirmed in part and Dismissed in part. Opinion type: Non-Published. Opinion method: Per Curiam. The opinion is also available through the Court's Opinions page at this link http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions.
Date Filed: 10/11/2017
Page: 1 of 2
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
D.C. Docket No. 2:13-cr-00114-WKW-WC-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JEFFREY THOMAS GOLA,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Alabama
(October 11, 2017)
Before MARCUS, WILLIAM PRYOR and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Jeffrey Gola appeals the denial of his motion for free transcripts. Gola
moved for transcripts of his change of plea hearing and his sentencing hearing,
Date Filed: 10/11/2017
Page: 2 of 2
which he has since received. Because “it is impossible for [this] court to grant
[Gola] any effectual relief,” United States v. Serrapio, 754 F.3d 1312, 1317 (11th
Cir. 2014) (quoting Knox v. Serv. Emps. Int’l Union, Local 1000, 567 U.S. 298,
307 (2012)), we dismiss as moot that part of his appeal challenging the denial of
trial transcripts. Gola also moved for a transcript of a hearing about his mental
fitness to prepare a collateral challenge to his sentence, see 28 U.S.C. § 2255, but
we cannot say that the denial of Gola’s motion was an abuse of discretion, see
United States v. Quinn, 123 F.3d 1415, 1425 (11th Cir. 1997). Gola “is not entitled
to obtain copies of court records at the government’s expense to search for possible
defects merely because he is an indigent.” United States v. Herrera, 474 F.2d
1049, 1049 (5th Cir. 1973). Gola argues that the denial of the transcripts
constitutes discrimination based on his mental disability, in violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, but Gola must present that
issue in a civil action, not in a postjudgment motion in a criminal case.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?