United States v. Cheese

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-7028 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus TROY LAMONT CHEESE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Charles H. Haden II, Chief District Judge. (CR-97-155) Submitted: December 14, 1999 Decided: February 4, 2000 Before LUTTIG and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamont Cheese, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Troy Cheese appeals the district court's order denying motions for an order directing Cheese’s former trial counsel to provide him with materials from his file, and for disclosure of the jury selection process and racial makeup of the district. Cheese seeks this material in order to prepare a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999), attacking his conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in violation of 21 U.S.C.A. § 846 (West Supp. 1999). We affirm the district court's order. In his § 2255 motion, Cheese need only set forth in summary form the claims he wishes to raise and the facts supporting those claims. Rule 2(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. The materials necessary to evaluate those claims will be available to the district court through its own file or material submitted by the Government in support of its answer. Rules 4(b), 5(b), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Should Cheese conclude at that point that additional material is necessary, he may seek discovery from the district court. Rule 6(a), Rules Governing § 2255 Proceedings. Therefore, we affirm the district court's denial of Cheese's motions. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2