Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
4-30-2007
USA v. Santiago
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-4728
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"USA v. Santiago" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 1178.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/1178
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
DLD-203 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 06-4728
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
MARCOS SANTIAGO,
Appellant
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Crim. No. 03-cr-00157)
District Judge: Honorable Timothy J. Savage
Submitted For Possible Summary Action Under Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
April 19, 2007
Before: BARRY, AMBRO and FISHER, Circuit Judges
(Filed: April 30, 2007)
OPINION
PER CURIAM
Marcos Santiago appeals the District Court’s order denying his “Motion to order
government to disclose to defendant all Jencks material within their possession.” In April
2004, Santiago was convicted of robbery and firearm charges and sentenced to 402
months in prison. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. Santiago filed a
“Motion to order government to disclose to defendant all Jencks material within their
possession.” The District Court denied both the motion and Santiago’s motion for
reconsideration. Santiago filed a timely notice of appeal, and we have jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
Santiago argues that he needs copies of all statements made by a witness against
him at his criminal trial in order to bring a § 2255 motion. According to the electronic
docket for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Santiago filed a § 2255 motion on
January 19, 2007. A discovery motion filed in those proceedings is the appropriate
vehicle for obtaining such documents if they exist.
Summary action is appropriate if there is no substantial question presented in the
appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, we will summarily affirm
the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit I.O.P. 10.6.
2