US v. Jason Ortega

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999092984-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999092983-2] Originating case number: 2:98-cr-00047-RAJ-TEM-4 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999161810]. Mailed to: Jason Ortega. [13-6577]

Appeal: 13-6577

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6577

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JASON ORTEGA, a/k/a Julio, a/k/a Jesus, a/k/a Billy St.
John,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:98-cr-00047-RAJ-TEM-4)

Submitted:

July 25, 2013

Decided:

July 30, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Ortega, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant
United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6577

Doc: 7

Filed: 07/30/2013

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Jason

Ortega

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

denying his request for a copy of the sentencing transcript from
his 1998 trial at government expense.

Ortega currently has no

motion to vacate pending, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013),
and he is therefore not eligible for preparation of a transcript
at

government

States v.
Ortega’s

expense.

MacCollom,
motion

for

28

426

U.S.C.

U.S.

317,

transcripts

§ 753(f)
319

allege

(2006);

(1976).

grounds

United

Nor

does

sufficient

support the certification requirements of § 753(f).

to

Therefore,

although we grant Ortega leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we
deny his motion to appoint counsel and affirm the order below.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2