Reeves v. United States of America
ORDER denying 31 Motion to Appoint Counsel; Order granting 31 Motion to Produce Transcripts (Chambers staff to mail transcripts per order). Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 1/11/2012. (prd)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case Nos. 10-CIV-24202-COHN/SELTZER
JUNIOR LEE REEVES,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO PRODUCE TRANSCRIPTS
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Movant Junior Lee Reeves’ Motion for
Production of Transcripts and to Appoint Counsel [DE 31]. The Court has carefully
considered the motion, has reviewed the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the
On July 12, 2011, this Court entered a final judgment denying Movant Junior Lee
Reeves’ (“Reeves” or “Movant”) motion to vacate sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255. Reeves filed a Motion to Compel Relief Under Rule 60(b), which the Court
denied on November 7, 2011 [DE 27]. The Court also denied Reeves’ Motion for a
Certificate of Appealability.1
Reeves now seeks a copy of the transcript of his plea colloquy and sentencing in
the underlying criminal action, stating that not having those documents is hindering his
For a full background on this case, please see the Final Judgment [DE 16] and
the November 7 Order [DE 27].
ability to process his appeal. Both transcripts are already in the record in this action,
and were sent to the Court of Appeals on December 15, 2011. Appendix to
Government’s Response [DE 11-10 and 11-20]; Compliance with Request from USCA
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), fees for transcripts furnished in § 2255
proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall be paid by the
United States “if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not
frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decie the issue presented by the suit or
appeal.” In this § 2255 proceeding, Movant included several claims, including an
alleged lack of due process because the Government informant was arrested for
additional crimes and deactivated; “sentencing disparity” which appears to dispute the
weapons charge; that his post traumatic stress disorder, a disability obtained during
military service, was not sufficiently considered in sentencing; that the confidential
informant entrapped Movant into committing the crimes; and Brady violations regarding
the confidential informant. All claims were rejected. In his Rule 60(b) motion, Reeves
challenged his sentence only.
The Court concludes that § 753 applies when fees are required to be paid to a
court reporter for preparation of the transcripts. If such preparation were required, any
appeal by Reeves would be frivolous. However, the transcripts have already been
prepared and are in the public CM/ECF file. This Court has already granted Movant
status to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal [DE 27]. Therefore, the Court will simply
print out and mail to Mr. Reeves a copy of the two short transcripts in the public record
[DE 11-10 and 11-20]. Both transcripts have already been submitted to the Court of
Appeal by the Clerk of Court [DE 28].
As to Reeves’ motion to appoint counsel, an indigent’s right to counsel on direct
appeal does not extend to post-conviction proceedings. Vandenades v. United States,
523 F.2d 1220, 1225 (5th Cir. 1975).2 Unless a district court finds that an evidentiary
proceeding is required, the decision of whether to appoint counsel in a 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 proceeding is discretionary. Id. at 1225 - 26; cf. Shepherd v. United States, 253
F.3d 585, 587 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that pursuant to Rule 8(c) of the Rules
Governing § 2255 Proceedings, an indigent defendant is entitled to appointment of
counsel where an evidentiary hearing is required). An evidentiary hearing was not
required in this case, and the Court did not address any meritorious arguments that
would require the assistance of counsel.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
Movant Junior Lee Reeves’ Motion for Production of Transcripts is hereby
Chambers staff shall print out and mail to Mr. Reeves the transcripts at DE 11-10
The decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as that
court existed on September 30, 1981, handed down by that court prior to the close of
business on that date, shall be binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, for this
court, the district courts, and the bankruptcy courts in the circuit. Bonner v. Pritchard,
661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).
Movant’s Motion to Appoint Counsel [DE 31] is hereby DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,
Florida, this 11th day of January, 2012.
Junior Lee Reeves, pro se
Reg. No. 81795-004
Texarkana Federal C.I.
P.O. Box 7000
Texarkana, TX 75505
Robert Luck, AUSA
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?