United States of America v. Adam Scott

ALD-057 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 23-2769
___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
ADAM SCOTT,
Appellant
____________________________________
On Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(E.D. Pa. Criminal No. 2:10-cr-00677-001)
District Judge: Honorable Michael M. Baylson
____________________________________
Submitted for Possible Summary Action
Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10.6
January 18, 2024
Before: HARDIMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, and NYGAARD, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed February 8, 2024)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant Adam Scott appeals from the District Court’s order denying his
post-judgment “due process protection” motion. For the reasons that follow, we will
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment.
In 2012, Scott was convicted of cocaine distribution and related firearms offenses.
In the years since, Scott has filed numerous post-judgment motions in the District Court
relating to his conviction. In August 2023, Scott filed a motion citing Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 5(f), requesting that the District Court issue an order requiring the
Government to acknowledge its disclosure obligations under the Due Process Protections
Act. He claimed that the Government never turned over various surveillance and wiretap
evidence during his prosecution.
The Government responded, noting that Rule 5(f) is applicable at the beginning of
a defendant’s criminal proceedings, “on the first scheduled court date when both
prosecutor and defense counsel are present.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f)(1). The Government
also included an acknowledgment of its discovery obligations. The District Court denied
Scott’s motion for the reasons stated by the Government. Scott timely appealed.1
Under any conceivable standard of review, we discern no error in the District
Court’s decision. As the Government noted, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f)
provides that at the start of an individual’s criminal proceedings, the trial judge must
“issue an oral and written order to prosecution and defense counsel that confirms the
disclosure obligation of the prosecutor . . . and the possible consequences of violating
1 We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We may summarily affirm a
district court’s order where the “appeal does not present a substantial question.” Murray
v. Bledsoe, 650 F.3d 246, 247 (3d Cir. 2011) (per curiam).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
such order under applicable law.” Scott was convicted more than a decade ago; this rule
does not provide an avenue for him to seek additional post-judgment discovery. And in
any event, the Government has re-affirmed its discovery obligations. Nothing further is
required by the rule, even if it could somehow apply in this context.
Accordingly, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s decision.

-- 3 of 3 --