US v. Sean Echols, No. 16-7034 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7034 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. SEAN ECHOLS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:13-cr-00211-JFA-1) Submitted: November 22, 2016 Before DIAZ and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Circuit Decided: Judges, November 28, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Echols, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes, William Kenneth Witherspoon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean Echols, a federal inmate who pled guilty to conspiracy to use facilities in interstate commerce in furtherance of a murder-for-hire scheme, appeals from the district court’s order denying his motion for reconsideration denying his request for copies closed criminal case. 1 necessary to enable 240-month prison term. of of its discovery prior material order in his Echols asserted that such material 2 was him to present claims challenging his We affirm the district court’s denial of this request. Copies of transcripts and court records may be provided to an indigent litigant at government expense 3 upon a showing by the litigant of See Jones v. a particularized Superintendent, Va. need for State Farm, the 460 documents. F.2d 150, 1 Echols was sentenced to 240 months’ imprisonment for his conviction in August 2014. The district court denied his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion challenging his conviction in April 2015. Echols’s original request for discovery material was filed in June 2016, and his motion for reconsideration was filed in July 2016. 2 Echols sought unspecified “discovery material” and “Brady[ v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),]” material of an unspecified nature. The motion for reconsideration also references summaries of witness statements that Echols claims are contained within the discovery material and claimed that Echols did not receive a copy of his plea agreement. 3 We assume, because Echols did not tender payment for copying costs, that any request for court records was at government expense. 2 152-53 (4th Cir. 1972). Such a litigant, however, is not entitled to free copies “merely to comb the record in the hope of discovering some flaw.” United States v. Glass, 317 F.2d 200, 202 (4th Cir. 1963). To the extent that the discovery material Echols sought was contained in court records, he did not establish the requisite need for such records under Jones. Echols failed to establish why he cannot, without a copy of the material he sought, set forth any claims he wishes to raise that challenge his 240-month prison term. To the extent that Echols sought post-conviction discovery to support efforts to obtain relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, a habeas movant, “unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not entitled to discovery as a matter of ordinary course.” Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997). Thus, discovery is Rules Governing § 2255 granted only for Proceedings. good A cause. habeas Rule movant 6, must make specific allegations establishing reason to believe that, if the facts are fully developed, he is entitled to relief. States v. Roane, 378 F.3d 382, 403 (4th Cir. 2004). United We conclude after review of the record that Echols has not established good cause for post-conviction discovery. We therefore affirm the district court’s denial of Echols’s motion. United States (D.S.C. July 14, 2016). v. Echols, No. 3:13-cr-00211-JFA-1 We dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
