IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. Comes now the Petitioner, Nathan Simons, by and through his attorneys,
|
|
- Posy Welch
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Comes now the Petitioner, Nathan Simons, by and through his attorneys, Russell P. Butler * and Catherine Chen, Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center, Inc., and E. Joel Wesp *, who pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 21 state as follows: EXPEDITED REVIEW PER STATUTE Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3), this Court must take up and decide this application forthwith within seventy-two (72) hours after this petition has been filed. (Emphasis added.) RELIEF SOUGHT Petitioner Nathan Simons requests that this Honorable Court issue a writ of mandamus under 18 U.S.C directing the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, to immediately allow Petitioner s counsel access to the file regarding United States v. Christopher McPherson, a/k/a Christopher Keifer, case number 2:08CR162, in order for Petitioner to enforce his rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, and the Constitution of the United States of America, or, in the alternative, direct the district court to stay the proceedings and to hold an expedited hearing on the Petitioner s motion. Petitioner also requests that this Honorable Court * Counsel of record in this Court.
2 determine if the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division made appropriate findings behind the sealing of the case pursuant to the mandates of the Constitution of the United States of America. The requested writ is necessary for Petitioner to enforce his rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, and the Constitution of the United States of America. ISSUES PRESENTED I. Whether the district court violated the rights of the victim under the Crime Victims Rights Act and/ or the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. II. Whether the district court violated the rights of the victim under the Constitution of the United States of America. FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUES PRESENTED 1 On May 30, 2008, Christopher E. McPherson, a/k/a Christopher E. Keifer (hereinafter Defendant ) was arrested on Ohio State charges, including grand theft. At that time, Secret Service Agent Nicholas Shelton and Detective Rick Meadows III spoke with Petitioner, Nathan Simons, regarding checks drawn and accounts created by the Defendant in Mr. Simons name. In June 2008, Secret Service Agent Shelton informed Mr. Simons that the state of Ohio would be dropping its charges, and that the federal government 1 See Affidavit of Nathan Simons attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit A as presented to the district court for a more comprehensive explanation of facts. 2
3 would be charging the Defendant for, among other charges, bank fraud. Agent Shelton asked if Mr. Simons would testify that it was not he who had written checks for $10, from a Swift Financial account. Mr. Simons agreed. After Mr. Simons signed a document in Agent Shelton s presence, Agent Shelton confirmed that the signatures on the checks appeared to be forged, and not that of Mr. Simons. On June 9, 2008, the United States filed a criminal complaint against the Defendant. As of August 25, 2008, more than two months after the complaint was filed, the entirety of the file was sealed, including even the case number on the matter. Mr. Simons and his two minor sons lost $36, as a direct result of Defendant s fraudulent scheme and conspiracy. The Defendant stole Mr. Simons identity and opened numerous accounts in Mr. Simons name, incurring $428, in charges. Mr. Simons has spent seventy-two hours working to clear a fraction of these charges, and anticipates spending countless more in his quest to clear those charges that remain. Due to Defendant s fraudulent actions, Mr. Simons resigned a position he had for approximately six years at Abbott Laboratories in order to work for the Defendant; Mr. Simons was unemployed from the date of the Defendant s arrest, May 30, 2008, until September 2,
4 Mr. Simons counsel has attempted to access information regarding the indictment, plea bargain and sentencing date via the United States Party/ Case Index (hereinafter PACER ). 2 As of October 3, 2008, the district court clerk informed counsel that the matter was sealed, and that not even a case number could be provided to counsel. On November 5, 2008, counsel filed a motion to unseal requesting that the district court allow Petitioner access to the matter in order to enforce his rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act. 3 The district court has not ruled on the motion to unseal. Neither Mr. Simons nor his counsel can obtain any information about the Defendant s alleged plea or the sentencing hearing date. STANDARD OF REVIEW Under the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter CVRA ), when a victim attempts to assert his or her rights provided by the statute, [t]he district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim s right forthwith. If the district court denies the relief sought, the Movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) (emphasis added). While the district 2 See Affidavits of Russell P. Butler, Esq. and Bridgette Harwood attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibits B and C, respectively for more comprehensive explanation of counsel s efforts to attempt to gain access to information regarding United States v. Christopher McPherson, a/k/a Christopher Keifer, case number 2:08CR162 and assert Mr. Simon s rights in the district court. 3 See motion to unseal attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit D as presented to the district court. 4
5 court has not ruled, its failure to decide the matter forthwith is a de facto denial of rights. Routinely, as the writ is one of the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal, three conditions must be satisfied before it may issue. Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004), citing Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Supra. However, the provision to victims of crime of the right to petition for a writ of mandamus establish[es] a procedure where a crime victim can, in essence, immediately appeal a denial of their rights by a trial court to the court of appeals, which must rule forthwith. Simply put, the mandamus procedure allows an appellate court to take timely action to ensure that the trial court follows the rule of law set out in this statute. 150 Cong. Rec. S4262 (April 22, 2004 (statement of Sen. Feinstein)) (emphasis added); see also Moore s Fed. Prac. 3d [1] (2008) ( because Congress has chosen mandamus as the mechanism for review under the CVRA, the victim need not make the usual threshold showing of extraordinary circumstances to obtain mandamus relief. ). Remedial legislation should be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes. Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U.S. 332, 336 (1967). Because the CVRA is remedial legislation, this provision allowing for victims to petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus is broadly construed to allow victims of crime to 5
6 petition for a writ of mandamus under a lower standard of review, the ordinary appellate standard of review. It is clear... that a petitioner seeking relief pursuant to the mandamus provision set forth in 3771(d)(3) need not overcome the hurdles typically faced by a petitioner seeking review of a district court determination through a writ of mandamus. In re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 562 (2d Cir. 2005). The Second Circuit based its opinion on the plain language of the CVRA as indicative that Congress chose a petition for mandamus as a mechanism by which a crime victim may appeal a district court s decision denying relief sought under the provisions of the CVRA. Id. Reviewing a similar mandamus petition, the Ninth Circuit also found that the CVRA provides for expedited review of petitions for writ of mandamus and requires a reasoned decision in case the writ is denied. Kenna v. United States Dist. Ct. for the Central Dist. of California, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9 th Cir. 2006) (emphasis added). The court also found that the CVRA mandamus review process is a unique regime that does, in fact, contemplate routine interlocutory review of district court decisions denying rights under the statute. See id (emphasis added). There, the Ninth Circuit found that, because of this unique regime created by the CVRA for mandamus petitions, we must issue the writ whenever we find that the district court s order reflects an abuse of discretion or legal error. Id. 6
7 In an unpublished opinion, the Third Circuit concurs that the CVRA establishes a different standard of review of mandamus petitions for victims of crime: mandamus relief is available under a different, and less demanding, standard under 18 U.S.C In re Walsh, 229 Fed.Appx. 58 at *2 (3 rd Cir. 2007) (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit, in another unpublished opinion, also weighed in on the side of the Second and Ninth Circuits. In re Doe, 264 Fed.Appx. 260 at *2 (4 th Cir. 2007). Although the court did not decide the issue, because it determined that the Petitioner was not entitled to rights under the CVRA, it did indicate that Id. mandamus petitions filed under the CVRA are not necessarily subject to this stringent standard of review. In creating the CVRA, Congress specifically chose a mandamus petition as the appropriate vehicle for appellate review of an order denying a crime victim s assertion of a right protected thereunder. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3). Because the use of mandamus in this context results from a deliberative legislative choice and not adroit or devious pleading, it is not clear that a petitioner under the CVRA should be subjected to the same stringent standard of review as traditional petitioners. Blatantly ignoring the legislative history and declining to consider the indepth analysis of the statutory language and history by the Second and Ninth Circuits in analyzing the statutory language of the CVRA, the Tenth Circuit found that ordinary mandamus standards apply when a victim petitions for review under 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3). In re Antrobus, 519 F.3d 1123, The Tenth Circuit 7
8 based its decision to respectfully disagree... with the decisions of our sister courts on the rationale that Congress could have drafted the CVRA using language providing for immediate appellate review rather than the term mandamus. Id. at Shortly thereafter, the Fifth Circuit sided with the Tenth Circuit in denying the use of the ordinary appellate standard to review a victim s petition for a writ of mandamus under the CVRA, tersely stating only that the court agreed with the Tenth Circuit for the reasons cited in Antrobus. In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394 (5 th Cir. 2008). Here, although the district court has not ruled, it clearly has not taken up and decided Mr. Simon s motion forthwith, nor has the Court ensured that the crime victim has been afforded his rights, as required by the CVRA. See 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) ( The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim s right forthwith. ). As such, Petitioner submits that this Court should follow the authority of the Second, Ninth, Third and Fourth Circuits and apply an ordinary appellate review standard of this petition as mandated by the plain language and legislative history of the CVRA. Although Petitioner is a victim entitled to rights under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (hereinafter MVRA ) (18 U.S.C. 3663A) and CVRA, including the right to petition for a writ of mandamus under ordinary appellate 8
9 standards of review, Petitioner still qualifies for mandamus under the ordinary Cheney standards of review. The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. 28 U.S.C. 1651(a). Although the writ of mandamus is a drastic and extraordinary remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes, the matter before this Court qualifies easily as an extraordinary cause. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380. The Defendant has placed the victim in a situation which the district court has further exacerbated, a situation that satisfies all three conditions enumerated in Cheney. Id. at , citing Kerr, 426 U.S First, the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires. See id. Second, the petitioner must satisfy the burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable. See id. Third, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. See id. Before Cheney was decided, this Circuit found that An error of law, standing alone, is not sufficient to warrant mandamus. However, mandamus can be used to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so. In 9
10 re Parker, 49 F.3d 204, 207 (6 th Cir. 1995). In this case, the district court has clearly and indisputably failed to act in the face of the CVRA s mandate to do so. Petitioner is entitled to mandamus under either the ordinary appellate standard of review anticipated by the CVRA or under the traditional mandamus standard of review. REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE I. THE DISTRICT COURT IMPROPERLY DENIED PETITIONER S RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT AND THE MANDATORY VICTIMS RESTITUTION ACT. A. PETITIONER IS A VICTIM AS DEFINED BY BOTH THE CVRA AND MVRA AND IS THEREFORE ENTITLED TO THE RIGHTS ENUMERATED THEREUNDER. Mr. Simons is a victim of the Defendant. Based on Mr. Simons involvement with law enforcement, the events leading up to Defendant s arrest, and the broad definition of victim under the CVRA and MVRA, Mr. Simons is a victim, as he was directly harmed by the Defendant s scheme, conspiracy and pattern. 18 U.S.C. 3663(a)(2), 3663A(a)(2) ( The term victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy or pattern. ). Under the CVRA, The term crime victim means a 10
11 person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia. 18 U.S.C. 3771(e). The Eleventh Circuit recently reviewed 18 U.S.C. 3771(e), examining the definition of victim under the CVRA. The court ruled that to determine who qualified as a victim, it was necessary to first identify the behavior constituting commission of a Federal offense, then to identify the direct and proximate effects of that behavior on parties other than the United States. And if the criminal behavior caused a party direct and proximate harmful effects, then the party is a victim under the CVRA. In re Janis W. Stewart, 2008 WL at 2 (11 th Cir. 2008). Under the MVRA, the term victim means a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered, including, in the case of an offense what involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(2). See also, U.S. v. Seligsohn, 981 F.2d 1418, 1422 (3d Cir. 1992). Similarly, the Seventh Circuit provides that restitution awards under the MVRA are applicable to three distinct circumstances: (1) where a victim is directly harmed by the offender s specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of the conviction; (2) where a victim is directly harmed by the 11
12 offender s conduct in the course of committing an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy or pattern; and (3) where the parties so agreed in a plea agreement. United States v. Randle, 324 F.3d 550, 556 (7 th Cir. 2003). Here, Mr. Simons was harmed by the Defendant in the course of Defendant s scheme, conspiracy and pattern to defraud Mr. Simons, his sons, and numerous banks to enrich his own coffers. Admittedly, the matter here is unique, because the case has been completely sealed. Because the matter has been sealed, there is no way for Mr. Simons to know whether he is a victim of the charge to which the Defendant pled guilty. However, the Defendant was arrested as a result of the fraudulent accounts he opened using Mr. Simons name. The Secret Service Agent, Nicholas Shelton, investigating the Defendant reported to Mr. Simons that the Defendant would be charged with bank fraud. Agent Shelton asked Mr. Simons if he would testify that it was not Mr. Simons who had written checks to the McPherson Property Group from a Swift Financial account. Upon observing Mr. Simons signature, Agent Shelton confirmed that the signatures on checks and requests to open accounts were clearly forged. The Defendant defrauded Mr. Simons, obtaining hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit using Mr. Simons personal information and tricked Mr. Simons and his sons into purchasing shares of a fraudulent corporation. To date, Mr. 12
13 Simons continues to wrestle with creditors, and has devoted significant time trying to remedy the situation and restore his financial circumstances to what they were before the Defendant destroyed them. See 18 U.S.C. 3663(b)(6), as amended on May 14, 2008 ( in the case of an offense under sections 1028(a)(7) or 1028A(a) of this title, restitution may be ordered from a defendant to a victim in an amount equal to the value of the time reasonably spent by the victim in an attempt to remediate the intended or actual harm incurred by the victim from the offense ). 4 Even if Mr. Simons is not named as a victim under the indictment, the Eleventh Circuit found that The CVRA does not limit the class of crime victims to those whose identity constitutes an element of the offense or who happen to be identified in the charging document. The statute, rather, instructs the district court to look at the offense itself only to determine the harmful effects the offense has on parties. Under the plain language of the statute, a party may qualify as a victim, even though it may not have been the target of the crime, as long as it suffers harm as a result of the crime s commission. Stewart, 2008 WL at 3. The Eleventh Circuit held that the petitioners in the case before it were victims under the CVRA although they were not mentioned in the information, because the defendant s criminal activity directly and proximately harmed them. See id. Finally, Senator Jon Kyl, as the primary drafter of the CVRA, made extensive comments regarding the legislative intent behind the statute. Regarding 4 Under 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(6), a victim is entitled to full restitution as provided by law. 13
14 subsection (e), in which crime victim is defined, Senator Kyl indicated that This is an intentionally broad definition because all victims of crime deserve to have their rights protected, whether or not they are the victim of the count charged. 150 Cong. Rec. S10912 (October 9, 2004 (statement of Sen. Kyl)). The facts surrounding the criminal matter in the district court, the plain language of the CVRA as well as its legislative history obligate a determination that Mr. Simons is a victim of the Defendant and is entitled to the rights enumerated in the CVRA and the MVRA. Mr. Simons motion filed in the district court requests access to the case file so that Mr. Simons can enforce his rights under the CVRA and MVRA. As such, the motion raises a victims rights issue as covered by the CVRA mandating the district court to act on the motion forthwith. 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3) ( The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim s right forthwith. ). The CVRA and the MVRA obligate a determination that Mr. Simons is a victim of the Defendant and is entitled to the rights enumerated in the CVRA. B. THIS COURT SHOULD ORDER THE DISTRICT COURT TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE OF THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT TO ISSUE A DECISION FORTHWITH ON PETITIONER S MOTIONS ASSERTING RIGHTS AND ALSO TO ALLOW VICTIM S COUNSEL ACCESS THE CRIMINAL CASE FILE. 14
15 The district court itself is obligated to ensure that Mr. Simons is afforded the rights subscribed in subsection (a) of Section U.S.C. 3771(b)(1) ( In any court proceedings involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). ). To this end, the CVRA plainly states, The district court shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim s right forthwith. 18 U.S.C. 3771(c)(3) (emphasis added). Mr. Simons counsel filed a motion to unseal the matter in order to enforce Mr. Simons rights on November 5, 2008, almost three months prior to this Petition. After some initial discussions to schedule a hearing and to inquire as to the filing of opposition papers, the Court has had no communications with Mr. Simons counsel. Counsel requested a copy of opposition papers that were not served on him, and was informed by the court that certain parts may need to be redacted, but that the court could probably provide a copy to counsel. See (Russell P. Butler Aff. Ex. B at 3). The last communication from the Court indicated only that counsel should contact the Deputy Clerk who has since not returned counsel s telephone calls or . See id U.S.C. 3771(b) (1) refers to the following rights under 3771 (a) which enumerate the eight rights granted to a crime victim: (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused; (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused; (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding; (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding; (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case; (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law; (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay; and (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim s dignity and privacy. 15
16 The CVRA indicates, If the district court denies the relief sought, the Movant may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus. 18 U.S.C. 3771(d)(3). Here, although the district court has not explicitly denied the relief sought, it also has stopped all communication with Mr. Simons counsel, failed to schedule a hearing and refused to provide Mr. Simons counsel a copy of an ex parte answer filed in response to Mr. Simons motion. This abrupt termination of communication constitutes a de facto violation of Section (d)(3) of the CVRA and the result is a continuing denial of Mr. Simons rights under Section (a) of the CRVA and the district court s obligations under Section (b)(1) the CVRA. Mr. Simons continues to wait in limbo, wrestling with the morass of creditors, not knowing if the district court will provide him his rights under law. Significantly, these rights are time-sensitive; they must be afforded by the district court before the trial or plea and the sentencing. Counsel believes that the Defendant pled guilty in this matter during the fall of 2008, and is incarcerated pending sentencing. Mr. Simons has no other venue to which he may address his requests: (1) to be reasonably protected from the Defendant; (2) to be notified of the sentencing date; (3) to not be excluded from the sentencing; (4) to be reasonably heard at the plea and sentencing; (5) to confer with the attorney for the Government in the matter; (6) to be provided with full and timely restitution as provided by law; (7) for proceedings free from unreasonable delay and (8) to be 16
17 treated with fairness and respect for his dignity and privacy. 18 U.S.C. 3771(a). Mr. Simons has, up to this point, asserted his rights only to wait and wait for the district court to take action. However, as a presumptive sentencing date fast approaches, possibly as early as February 2009, it is becoming increasingly clear that the district court will not do anything unless its hand is forced. If the Defendant is sentenced without Mr. Simons participation, any such sentence would be an additional denial to Mr. Simons of his rights under the CVRA and effectively subject him to additional victimization beyond what he suffered at the hands of the Defendant in the first place. Any attempt to enforce his rights once the district court has sentenced the Defendant will certainly be argued as moot. As such, Mr. Simons has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires, and prompt judicial action by this Court is required. If a plea has in fact occurred, Mr. Simons rights will already have been violated and each day without relief further exacerbates such violation. Mr. Simons has rights granted to him under the CVRA and MVRA, and he is merely requesting that those rights be enforced under the rule of law. C. BY RESTRICTING PETITIONER S ACCESS, THE DISTRICT COURT IS DENYING PETITIONER S RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT AND THE MANDATORY VICTIMS RESTITUTION ACT. Federal criminal procedure and the CVRA explicitly provide to victims of crimes the rights to be notified of, not to be excluded from, to be heard at and to 17
18 request restitution at criminal proceedings relating to offenses committed against them. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 3510, 3663A, and The CVRA plainly states that Mr. Simons has the right not to be excluded from any public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding. 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(3). Mr. Simons has requested that the matter be opened to him in order to enforce his rights including that he be given notice of the date of the sentencing at which he has requested to be heard and to ask for restitution. Mr. Simons may have already been improperly excluded from a plea hearing in this matter and with his right to confer with the Government, because the district court s sealing of the matter denied him any notice and opportunity to attend. He is requesting that his remaining rights be accorded in full. It may be argued that because the proceeding has been sealed, it has been removed from the spectrum of the CVRA. However, the CVRA clearly states that In any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim, the court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a) [Rights of crime victims]. 18 U.S.C. 3771(b)(1) (emphasis added). Although paragraphs two, three and four of subsection (a) include language limiting those rights to public court proceedings, subsection (b) requires that the 18
19 court shall not only ensure that the crime victim is afforded [his or her] rights described in subsection (a), but also requires that The reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record. 18 U.S.C. 3771(b)(1). Therefore, regardless of the public court proceedings language in subsection (a), the district court is required to (1) ensure that Mr. Simons is afforded his rights as described in subsection (a) and (2) consider reasonable alternatives to the exclusion of Mr. Simons from the criminal proceedings. The plain statutory language indicates that Congress clearly intended that victims are permitted to be present at proceedings other than grand jury proceedings. Moreover, the matter was sealed at a point after Mr. Simons should have been notified of the proceedings. The Government and the district court were under obligations with respect to Mr. Simon s rights, before the matter was sealed in the fall of 2008, to notify or ensure Mr. Simons of his rights to participate, and they both failed to comply with those obligations. This continuing violation has only been exacerbated by the affirmative exclusion of Mr. Simons in the sealing of the matter. Furthermore, a United States district court shall not order any victim of an offense excluded from the trial of a defendant accused of that offense because such victim may, during the sentencing hearing, make a statement or present any information in relation to the sentence. 18 U.S.C Here, Congress did not 19
20 limit this right to proceedings that are public. Sealing the matter without making an exception for Mr. Simons is a clear violation of this provision. The language of subsection (a)(6) also clearly does not limit the right to full and timely restitution to public proceedings. The language plainly states, A crime victim has the following rights: the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. 18 U.S.C. 3771(a)(6). In an examination of the floor debate of the CVRA, Senator Kyl suggested in a colloquy that the CVRA would be applicable to public proceedings, thus excluding grand jury proceedings and perhaps where, upon request by the government or defense, the court orders the proceedings closed, for example, in organized crime or national security cases. 150 Cong. Rec. S10910 (October 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). However, even if organized crime or national security were possibly implicated in this matter, the language of the CVRA plainly mandates that the district court ensures that Mr. Simons is afforded the rights described in subsection (a). 18 U.S.C Again, an entirely reasonable alternative to sealing the entire matter would be to permit Mr. Simons and his counsel access to the matter to enforce Mr. Simons rights under the CVRA, the MVRA, and the United States Constitution. Even if the district court validly decided to seal the matter because organized crime or national security was implicated, the CVRA plainly states that The 20
21 reasons for any decision denying relief under this chapter shall be clearly stated on the record. 18 U.S.C. 3771(b)(1). Neither Mr. Simons nor his counsel has been provided with any reason for denying Mr. Simons requested relief. Senator Kyl emphasized the importance of this language stating that: I would also like to comment on (b), which directs courts to ensure that the rights in this law be afforded and to record, on the record, any reason for denying relief of an assertion of a crime victim. This provision is critical because it is in the courts of this country that these rights will be asserted and it is the courts that will be responsible for enforcing them. Further, requiring a court to provide the reasons for denial or relief is necessary for effective appeal of such denial. 150 Cong. Rec. S10911 (October 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). Clearly, the CVRA mandates the district court to: (1) issue a decision forthwith regarding Mr. Simons request to enforce his rights under the CVRA and, if the decision denies Mr. Simons request, then (2) provide the reasons for the denial on the record, and (3) also to treat victims of crime with fairness. The legislative history of the CVRA further indicates that the statute encompasses due process rights of victims of crime. Senator Kyl stated, regarding subsection (a)(8) of 18 U.S.C. 3771: The broad rights articulated in this section are meant to be rights themselves and are not intended to just be aspirational. One of these rights is the right to be treated with fairness. Of course, fairness includes the notion of due process. Too often victims of crime experience a secondary victimization at the hands of the criminal justice system. This provision is intended to direct government agencies and employees, whether they are 21
22 in executive or judicial branches, to treat victims of crime with the respect they deserve and to afford them due process. 150 Cong. Rec. S10911 (October 9, 2004) (statement of Sen. Kyl). Orders issued without legal basis, conflicts of interest, and generally mysterious conduct reflect exactly the sort of sloppy adjudication that at thorough district court proceeding, i.e., due process, is meant to avoid. United States v. Perry, 360 F.3d 519, 526 (6 th Cir. 2004). Under the MVRA, Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense described in subsection (c), the court shall order, in addition to, or in the case of a misdemeanor, in addition to or in lieu of, any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense. 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1). Subsection (c) limits mandatory restitution to convictions of or plea agreements relating to charges for any offense that is... an offense against property under... [T]itle [18]... including any offense committed by fraud or deceit. Certainly, the charges levied against, and to which the Defendant pled guilty, fall within Title 18 Crimes and Criminal Procedure. Mr. Simons qualifies as a victim under the MVRA definition: a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of an offense for which restitution may be ordered including, in the case of an offense that involves as an element a scheme, conspiracy, or pattern of criminal activity, any person directly harmed by the defendant s criminal conduct in the course of the scheme, conspiracy, or pattern. 22
23 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(2). The Defendant not only illegally created hundreds of thousands of dollars of debt in Mr. Simons name, but also stole through trickery, deceit and fraudulent statements, tens of thousands of dollars from Mr. Simons and his sons, thereby causing Mr. Simons direct and proximate harm. Even if the district court found that Mr. Simons rights under the CVRA were limited due to, for example, organized crime or national security reasons, the MVRA plainly states that Notwithstanding any other provisions of law,... the court shall order... that the defendant make restitution to the victim of the offense. 18 U.S.C. 3663A(a)(1) (emphases added). Congress included no limitations on the clause to public proceedings. Mr. Simons is entitled to restitution in this matter under both the CVRA and the MVRA, and notwithstanding any orders sealing the matter, the court should afford Mr. Simons restitution under law. Furthermore, in the entirely hypothetical possibility that the matter was sealed due to the implication of organized crime or national security, the district court could allow access to Mr. Simons and his counsel by including them in the sealing order. II. THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF MR. SIMONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A. PETITIONER HAS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF ACCESS UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND COMMON LAW AS WELL AS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT. 23
24 Mr. Simon has a First Amendment right of access to public prosecution. A presumption of openness inheres in the very nature of a criminal trial under this Nation s system of justice. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980). This presumption of openness certainly extends to the matter herein. In Richmond Newspapers, the Supreme Court noted that the trial judge made no findings to support closure; no inquiry was made as to whether alternative solutions would have met the need to ensure fairness; there was no recognition of any right under the Constitution for the public or press to attend the trial. Id. at The Court held that Absent an overriding interest articulated in findings, the trial of a criminal case must be open to the public. See id. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of a California court of appeal stating, not only was there a failure to articulate findings with the requisite specificity but there was also a failure to consider alternatives to closure and to total suppression of the transcript. Press-Enterprise, 464 U.S. at 513. Similarly here, there is no record whatsoever available to Mr. Simons to ascertain the basis on which the district court has excluded him from these proceedings. Where, as in the present case, the State attempts to deny the right of access in order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is 24
25 narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for the County of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596, (1982). The Constitution of the United States demands that, at a minimum, the district court considers alternatives to sealing the matter to meet the need to ensure fairness, including the possibility of opening the matter solely to Mr. Simons and his counsel, or, if the district court seals the matter against the victim, it must demonstrate that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. See id. Again, if a compelling governmental interest exists, inclusion of Mr. Simons and his counsel in the sealing order to ensure that they do not disclose information to the public is an entirely viable alternative that would satisfy the mandates of the CVRA, the MVRA and the Constitution as well as safeguarding the interests of the government and the Defendant. Further, as Mr. Simons continues to struggle with not only the emotional impact of being the Defendant s victim but also the extreme financial hardship into which the Defendant has plunged him, this Circuit should consider that public proceedings vindicate the concerns of the victims and the community in knowing that offenders are being brought to account for their criminal conduct. Press- Enterprise, 464 U.S. at
26 Not only does Mr. Simons have a First Amendment right of access to the matter, he also has due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, as recognized by this Court in United States v. Perry, 360 F.3d 519, 525 (6 th Cir. 2004). In Perry, this Circuit found that, because in Ohio, judgment liens create property interests,... and the federal constitution prevents the deprivation of these Ohio property interests without due process..., once Intervenor obtained a valid lien under state law... she also obtained a property right of constitutional magnitude. Id. Here, the district court has blocked Mr. Simons from even attempting to establish that right by excluding him from the matter despite Mr. Simons due process rights guaranteed by the Constitution. B. THIS COURT SHOULD DETERMINE IF APPROPRIATE FINDINGS BEHIND THE SEALING OF THE CASE WERE MADE PURSUANT TO PRESS- ENTERPRISE V. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PETITIONER THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHALLENGE THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THE ORDER AND PREVENT FURTHER VIOLATIONS OF MR. SIMONS RIGHTS UNDER THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT, THE MANDATORY VICTIMS RESTITUTION ACT AND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. The CVRA has bestowed eight specific rights upon victims of crime which Mr. Simons is attempting to invoke invoking in district court. Additionally, the MVRA has provided to Mr. Simons a mandatory right to restitution. It is absolutely indisputable that Mr. Simons is entitled to enforcement of his rights under the CVRA and the MVRA beyond his rights under the First Amendment. By sealing the entire criminal case without providing the minimally requisite 26
27 factual findings, the district court has in effect extinguished several of Mr. Simons rights under the CVRA, and threatens to violate those few that remain under both the CVRA and MVRA. More than twenty years ago, the Supreme Court ruled that The presumption of openness may be overcome only by an overriding interest based on findings that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest. The interest is to be articulated along with findings specific enough that a reviewing court can determine whether the closure order was properly entered. Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 464 U.S. 501, 510 (1984). Mr. Simons is unable to evaluate the appropriateness of the district court s decision to seal the matter, because he has no access to determine if the district court issued findings. More importantly, no record whatsoever is available to this Court to determine whether the closure order was properly entered. Id. In fact, the district court has failed to even respond to Mr. Simons, other than initial discussions with his counsel, nor has the district court provided to counsel docket entries or a copy of opposition papers to the motion filed for Mr. Simons asserting his rights in district court. Mr. Simons and his counsel have waited almost three months for a response from the district court. This Court, along with the direction to decide Mr. Simons motion, should order the district court to issue its findings for sealing the matter. The district court may not ignore the Constitutional requirements. 27
28 THE WRIT IS APPROPRIATE AND SHOULD ISSUE UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. A writ here is entirely appropriate under the circumstances. If this Court fails to address Mr. Simons efforts to enforce his rights under the CVRA, MVRA, and the United States Constitution, the Court would erode the rule of law by denying Mr. Simons his rights and leave Mr. Simons drowning in the wake of the hundreds of thousands of dollars of credit card debt caused by the Defendant, and allow the Defendant to retain the tens of thousands of dollars that he obtained from Mr. Simons and his sons through trickery, deceit, and fraudulent statements. Justice begs the Court to issue a writ of mandamus which would order: A. The district court to forthwith follow its obligations including under 18 U.S.C. 3771(b) to ensure that Mr. Simons is afforded his rights under the CVRA, the MVRA and the Constitution of the United States in the prosecution of Mr. Keifer, a/k/a Mr. McPherson; B. The district court to unseal the entire record for failing to make the appropriate findings before the sealing of the entire case pursuant to the mandates of the Constitution of the United States of America. C. Such other and further relief as this Honorable Court deems just and proper. 28
29 Respectfully submitted, Russell P. Butler * Catherine Chen Maryland Crime Victims Resource Center, Inc Prince George s Boulevard Suite 750 Upper Marlboro, Maryland _/S/ E. Joel Wesp * 300 East Broad Street Suite 300 Columbus, Ohio * Counsel of record in this Court. 29
FILED Feb 22, 2010 LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
Case: 10-3159 Document: 00619242241 Filed: 02/22/2010 Page: 1 In re: LAWRENCE J. ACKER, BRIAN W. BUTTARS, LINDA DESMOND, JAMES FEENEY, AINELLO MANCUSI, RON MIASTKOWSKI, PERRY PEKA, PATRICK SIMASKO, WAYNE
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JAMES R. FISHER AND ODYSSEY
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. No In re: MARTIN MCNULTY,
Case: 10-3201 Document: 00619324149 Filed: 02/26/2010 Page: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 10-3201 In re: MARTIN MCNULTY, Petitioner. ANSWER OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
More informationCrime Victims Rights Act: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 3771
Crime Victims Rights Act: A Sketch of 18 U.S.C. 3771 Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law December 9, 2015 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov RS22518 Summary Section 3771
More informationDraft Rules on Privacy and Access to Court Records
Draft Rules on Privacy and Access to Court Records As Approved by the Judicial Council of Virginia, March, 2008 Part Nine Rules for Public Access to Court Records Rule 9:1. Purpose; Construction. Rule
More information3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments Page 1
3RD CIRCUIT LOCAL APPELLATE RULES Proposed amendments 2008 - Page 1 1 L.A.R. 1.0 SCOPE AND TITLE OF RULES 2 1.1 Scope and Organization of Rules 3 The following Local Appellate Rules (L.A.R.) are adopted
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 10-1518 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JAMES R. FISHER,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY APPELLANT, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Godfrey, 181 Ohio App.3d 75, 2009-Ohio-547.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT MERCER COUNTY THE STATE OF OHIO, APPELLANT, CASE NO. 10-08-08 v. GODFREY, O P I N
More informationWEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE. House Bill 2657
WEST VIRGINIA LEGISLATURE 2017 REGULAR SESSION Introduced House Bill 2657 BY DELEGATE MILEY [By Request of the Executive] [Introduced February 22, 2017; Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.] 1 2
More informationNo. 08A3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08A3 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ALISA DEAN ET AL. v. Applicants, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AND BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC., Respondents. OPPOSITION
More informationHonorable Chairman Franks and Distinguished Members, (A) THE PEOPLE WIDELY AGREE THAT VICTIMS RIGHTS DESERVE SERIOUS AND PERMANENT RESPECT.
TESTIMONY OF PROFESSOR DOUGLAS E BELOOF BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND CIVIL JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES APRIL 25, 2013 113 th Congress, 1 st Session Honorable
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-646 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States SAI, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District
More informationSTATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI CRIME VICTIMS BILL OF RIGHTS REQUEST TO EXERCISE VICTIMS RIGHTS FOR VICTIM TO SIGN: I,, victim of the crime of, (victim) (crime committed) committed on, by in, (date) (name of offender,
More informationUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 File Name: 10a0146p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, X -- v.
More informationUNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
UNITED STATES ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Before GORDON, JOHNSTON, and ECKER Appellate Military Judges UNITED STATES, Appellee v. Specialist VERNON R. SCOTT, JR. United States Army, Appellant ARMY 9601958
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA. Alexandria Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. No. 1: 08cr0079 (JCC KYLE DUSTIN FOGGO, aka DUSTY FOGGO, Defendant. MOTION FOR ORDER
More informationARTICLE 11A. VICTIM PROTECTION ACT OF 1984.
ARTICLE 11A. VICTIM PROTECTION ACT OF 1984. 61-11A-1. Legislative findings and purpose. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that without the cooperation of victims and witnesses, the criminal justice
More informationCase 3:10-cr FDW Document 3 Filed 04/07/10 Page 1 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKET NO. 3:1 OCR59-W v. PLEA AGREEMENT RODNEY REED CAVERLY NOW COMES the United States of America,
More informationNC General Statutes - Chapter 15A Article 89 1
Article 89. Motion for Appropriate Relief and Other Post-Trial Relief. 15A-1411. Motion for appropriate relief. (a) Relief from errors committed in the trial division, or other post-trial relief, may be
More informationCase 5:17-cr JLV Document 46 Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Case 5:17-cr-50066-JLV Document 46 Filed 10/02/18 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 131 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, vs. Plaintiff, DWIGHT
More informationPLAN OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. In Implementation of. The Criminal Justice Act
PLAN OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT In Implementation of The Criminal Justice Act The Judicial Council of the Fourth Circuit adopts the following plan, in implementation of
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. No ; D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cr MGC-1 ; 1:10-cr MGC-1
Case: 11-12716 Date Filed: 08/03/2012 Page: 1 of 12 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 11-12716 ; 11-12802 D.C. Docket Nos. 1:10-cr-20906-MGC-1 ; 1:10-cr-20907-MGC-1
More informationCase 1:15-mc ESH Document 17 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Case 1:15-mc-00410-ESH Document 17 Filed 05/18/15 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN RE THE REPORTERS COMMITTEE FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS, CBS BROADCASTING INC., Misc.
More informationTHE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE. SOUTHERN DISTRICT 05-S-2396 to State of New Hampshire. James B. Hobbs. Opinion and Order
THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE HILLSBOROUGH, SS SUPERIOR COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT 05-S-2396 to 2401 State of New Hampshire v. James B. Hobbs Opinion and Order Lynn, C.J. The defendant, James B. Hobbs, is charged
More informationReport to Chief Justice Robert J. Lynn, NH Superior Court. Concerning RSA Chapter 135-E: The Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators.
Report to Chief Justice Robert J. Lynn, NH Superior Court Concerning RSA Chapter 135-E: The Commitment of Sexually Violent Predators June 30, 2009 In conducting this review, with the assistance of Kim
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-651 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY AND VICKY,
More informationCOMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS WPSD TV, THE PADUCAH SUN, AND THE MARSHALL COUNTY TRIBUNE-COURIER
COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY COURT OF APPEALS WPSD TV, THE PADUCAH SUN, AND THE MARSHALL COUNTY TRIBUNE-COURIER PETITIONERS v. VERIFIED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION AND MOTION FOR INTERMEDIATE
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46 (1:01CR45 & 3:01CR11-3)
Greer v. USA Doc. 19 Case 1:04-cv-00046-LHT Document 19 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 8 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL NO. 1:04CV46
More informationStatute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch
Statute of Limitation in Federal Criminal Cases: A Sketch name redacted Senior Specialist in American Public Law November 14, 2017 Congressional Research Service 7-... www.crs.gov RS21121 Summary A statute
More informationVideo Course Evaluation Form. Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of Course You Just Watched
Garden State CLE 21 Winthrop Road Lawrenceville, New Jersey 08648 (609) 895-0046 fax- 609-895-1899 Atty2starz@aol.com! Video Course Evaluation Form Attorney Name Atty ID number for Pennsylvania: Name of
More informationNAMSDL Case Law Update
In This Issue This issue of NAMSDL Case Law Update focuses on seven cases related to the access to and use of prescription monitoring program ( PMP ) records. The issues addressed in these decisions involve:
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION In re, No. A On Habeas Corpus. Related Appeal No. A County Superior Court No. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS [Attorney
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
U.S. v. Dukes IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT No. 04-14344 D. C. Docket No. 03-00174-CR-ODE-1-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee, versus FRANCES J. DUKES, a.k.a.
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA PUBLISHED Present: Judges Petty, Beales and O Brien Argued at Lexington, Virginia DANIEL ERNEST McGINNIS OPINION BY v. Record No. 0117-17-3 JUDGE RANDOLPH A. BEALES DECEMBER
More informationNote: New caption for Rule 1:38 adopted July 16, 2009 to be effective September 1, 2009.
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY PART I. RULES OF GENERAL APPLICATION CHAPTER IV. ADMINISTRATION RULE 1:38. PUBLIC ACCESS TO COURT RECORDS AND ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS Rule 1:38. Public
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Case: 14-30295 Document: 00512831156 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/10/2014 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit FILED
More informationSECURING EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT BY DECEPTION
AN ACT Relating to the fraudulent exercise of certain governmental functions and the fraudulent creation or use of certain pleadings, governmental documents, and records; providing penalties. BE IT ENACTED
More informationUSA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-1-2011 USA v. Jose Cruz-Aleman Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 10-2394 Follow this and
More informationSUPERIOR COURT 1 MAR PENOBSCOT COUNTY I ON PETITION FOR POST-CONVICTION REVIEW STATE OF MAINE,
STATE OF MAINE PENOBSCOT, ss. DOUGLAS H. BURR Petitioner I FILED & EHTE-RED SUPERIOR COURT 1 MAR 3 0 2007 I PENOBSCOT COUNTY I SUPERIOR COURT CRIMINAL ACTION DOCKET NO. CR.06-174, - S. ' v. VDE ON PETITION
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. T.M., 2014-Ohio-5688.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 101194 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT vs. T.M. DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
More informationChild Victims and Child Witnesses Rights in Federal Court December 2014
Child Victims and Child Witnesses Rights in Federal Court December 2014 Leslie A. Hagen National Indian Country Training Coordinator Leslie.Hagen3@usdoj.gov 18 U.S.C. 3509/Child Victims and Child Witnesses
More informationSupreme Court Hears Argument to Determine Whether Mandatory Federal Restitution Statute Covers Professional Costs Incurred by Corporate Victims
Supreme Court Hears Argument to Determine Whether Mandatory Federal Restitution Statute Covers Professional Costs Incurred by Corporate Victims April 25, 2018 On April 18, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-651 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- AMY AND VICKY,
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 11-7-2002 USA v. Saxton Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 02-1326 Follow this and additional
More informationNo IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
No. 16-9649 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CASSANDRA ANNE KASOWSKI, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
More informationThe State s brief in response to the Cafaro defendants motion to enlarge time, previously filed under seal, shall be unsealed. The Cafaro defendants
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS MAHONING COUNTY, OHIO STATE OF OHIO 2010 CR 800 Plaintiff December 21, 2010 Vs. DECISION AND ORDER ANTHONY M. CAFARO, JR. THE CAFARO COMPANY (A) JUDGE WILLIAM H. WOLFF, JR..
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
Case: 08-1276 Document: 00116026377 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/02/2010 Entry ID: 5421950 No. 08-1276 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. ALVIN F. AGUIRRE-GONZÁLEZ,
More informationNotes on how to read the chart:
To better understand how the USA FREEDOM Act amends the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA), the Westin Center created a redlined version of the FISA reflecting the FREEDOM Act s changes.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS
[Cite as State v. Phillips, 2014-Ohio-5309.] STATE OF OHIO, MAHONING COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ) ) CASE NO. 14 MA 34 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) - VS - ) OPINION ) KEITH
More informationJeremy T. Bosler, Public Defender, and John Reese Petty, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Washoe County, for Real Party in Interest.
134 Nev., Advance Opinion 50 IN THE THE STATE THE STATE, Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT THE STATE, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE WILLIAM A. MADDOX, Respondents, and
More informationVictim / Witness Handbook. Table of Contents
Victim / Witness Handbook Table of Contents A few words about the Criminal Justice System Arrest Warrants Subpoenas Misdemeanors & Felonies General Sessions Court Arraignment at General Sessions Court
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CENTRAL DIVISION CASE NO. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
RICHARD L. DUQUETTE Attorney at Law P.O. Box 2446 Carlsbad, CA 92018 2446 SBN 108342 Telephone: (760 730 0500 Attorney for Petitioner CHRISTINA HARRIS SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF
More informationCase 1:17-cr RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10. United States v. Michael T. Flynn
Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 3 Filed 12/01/17 Page 1 of 10 U.S. Department of Justice The Special Counsel's Office Washington, D.C. 20530 November 30, 2017 Robert K. Kelner Stephen P. Anthony Covington
More informationIn Re: James Anderson
2011 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 9-30-2011 In Re: James Anderson Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 11-3233 Follow this and
More information79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Regular Session. Enrolled. Senate Bill 505
79th OREGON LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY--2017 Regular Session Enrolled Senate Bill 505 Printed pursuant to Senate Interim Rule 213.28 by order of the President of the Senate in conformance with presession filing
More informationTENTH CIRCUIT ORDER AND JUDGMENT * On October 20, 2006, Jonearl B. Smith was charged by complaint with
FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS December 23, 2011 TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. Plaintiff - Appellee,
More informationCHAPTER Section 1 of P.L.1995, c.408 (C.43:1-3) is amended to read as follows:
CHAPTER 49 AN ACT concerning mandatory forfeiture of retirement benefits and mandatory imprisonment for public officers or employees convicted of certain crimes and amending and supplementing P.L.1995,
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 98-CO-907. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationINDIANA FALSE CLAIMS AND WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION ACT
Indiana False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.5 et seq (as amended through P.L. 109-2014) Indiana Medicaid False Claims and Whistleblower Protection Act, codified at 5-11-5.7
More informationNo SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants,
No. 13-10026 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Joseph Jones, Desmond Thurston, and Antuwan Ball Petitioner- Appellants, v. United States, Respondent- Appellee. Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULES 3:26 BAIL Rule 3:26-1. Right to Pretrial Release Before Conviction (a) Persons Entitled; Standards for Fixing. (1) Persons Charged on a Complaint-Warrant
More informationDepartment of Labor Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS. Connecticut State Labor Relations Act. Article I. Description of Organization and Definitions
Relations TABLE OF CONTENTS Connecticut State Labor Relations Act Article I Description of Organization and Definitions Creation and authority....................... 31-101- 1 Functions.................................
More informationEleventh Judicial District Local Rules
Eleventh Judicial District Local Rules Table of Contents Standardized Practice for District Court Criminal Sessions... 11.3 Order for Non-Appearing Defendants/ Respondents and Non-Complying Defendant/
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI ST. JOSEPH DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 07-06023-02-CR-SJ-DW ) STEPHANIE E. DAVIS, ) ) Defendant.
More informationTHE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
THE JOINT RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE FOR COURTS OF CRIMINAL APPEALS Effective 1 January 2019 Table of Contents I. General... 1 Rule 1. Courts of Criminal Appeals... 1 Rule 2. Scope of Rules; Title...
More informationCourt of Appeals of Ohio
[Cite as State v. Page, 2011-Ohio-83.] Court of Appeals of Ohio EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 94369 STATE OF OHIO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE vs. WILLIE PAGE, JR. DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION. Criminal No. 5:06-CR-136-1D Civil No.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN DIVISION Criminal No. 5:06-CR-136-1D Civil No. 5:08-CV-425-1D KEVIN LESLIE GEDDINGS, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2002 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 3-14-2002 USA v. Stewart Precedential or Non-Precedential: Docket 1-2037 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2002
More informationSTATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
[Cite as State v. Dalton, 2009-Ohio-6910.] STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF LORAIN ) STATE OF OHIO Appellee C.A. No. 09CA009589 v. JOHN P. DALTON Appellant
More informationDistrict of Columbia False Claims Act
District of Columbia False Claims Act 2-308.03. Claims by District government against contractor (a) (1) All claims by the District government against a contractor arising under or relating to a contract
More informationCase 5:17-cr JLV Document 52 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 227 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION
Case 5:17-cr-50066-JLV Document 52 Filed 11/08/18 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 227 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, CR. 17-50066-JLV
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ALESTEVE CLEATON, Petitioner v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Respondent 2015-3126 Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC-0752-14-0760-I-1.
More informationRULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION
RULES GOVERNING THE COURTS OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY RULE 3:21. SENTENCE AND JUDGMENT; WITHDRAWAL OF PLEA; PRESENTENCE INVESTIGATION; PROBATION Rule 3:21-1. Withdrawal of Plea A motion to withdraw a plea
More informationCase: 2:13-cr MHW-TPK Doc #: 56 Filed: 08/28/14 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 368
Case 213-cr-00183-MHW-TPK Doc # 56 Filed 08/28/14 Page 1 of 7 PAGEID # 368 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Case No. 213-CR-183
More informationwith one count of Aggravated Murder, O.R.C (B), and two counts of
STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS ) SS. COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA ) CR. 184772 ) ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND ) JUDGMENT ENTRY ) STATE OF OHIO, Plaintiff ) ) Vs. ) ) WILLIE LEE JESTER,
More informationCase: 2:13-cv MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883
Case: 2:13-cv-00953-MHW-TPK Doc #: 130 Filed: 07/08/14 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 2883 LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF OHIO, et al., and ROBERT HART, et al., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN
More informationA BILL IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
0 0 A BILL - IN THE COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA To create limited liability for employers who hire or retain returning citizens if the employer has taken certain steps to make a good-faith determination
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. ) ) v.
Case :-cr-00-ghk Document Filed 0/0/ Page of Page ID #: 0 0 SEAN K. KENNEDY (No. Federal Public Defender (E-mail: Sean_Kennedy@fd.org FIRDAUS F. DORDI (No. (E-mail: Firdaus_Dordi@fd.org Deputy Federal
More informationSENATE, No. 881 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 215th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 2012 SESSION
SENATE, No. STATE OF NEW JERSEY th LEGISLATURE PRE-FILED FOR INTRODUCTION IN THE 0 SESSION Sponsored by: Senator RAYMOND J. LESNIAK District 0 (Union) SYNOPSIS Amends special probation statute to give
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO
[Cite as State v. Carey, 2011-Ohio-1998.] IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT UNION COUNTY STATE OF OHIO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, CASE NO. 14-10-25 v. SHONTA CAREY, O P I N I O N DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit KENNETH L. BUHOLTZ, Claimant-Appellant v. ROBERT D. SNYDER, ACTING SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee
More information[SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED]
(Filed - April 3, 2008 - Effective August 1, 2008) Rule XI. Disciplinary Proceedings. Section 1. Jurisdiction. [UNCHANGED] Section 2. Grounds for discipline. [SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) ARE UNCHANGED] (c)
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ARMANDO GARCIA v. Petitioner, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition For Writ Of Certiorari To The United States Court of Appeals (7th Cir.)
More informationSTATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT
[Cite as State v. Mace, 2007-Ohio-1113.] STATE OF OHIO, COLUMBIANA COUNTY IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT STATE OF OHIO, ) ) CASE NO. 06 CO 25 PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, ) ) - VS - ) O P I N I O N )
More informationINDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS
INDIVIDUAL PRACTICES OF JUDGE DEBORAH A. BATTS Nothing in my Individual Practices supersedes a specific time period for filing a motion specified by statute or Federal Rule including but not limited to
More informationLEGAL PUBLICATIONS PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM LAW INSTITUTE AT LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL
Victim Law Bulletin LEGAL PUBLICATIONS PROJECT OF THE NATIONAL CRIME VICTIM LAW INSTITUTE AT LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL Integrating Crime Victims Into the Sentencing Process* The Current System Gives Victims
More informationUNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES. Senior Airman CHARLES A. WILSON, III United States Air Force. Misc. Dkt.
UNITED STATES AIR FORCE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS UNITED STATES v. Senior Airman CHARLES A. WILSON, III United States Air Force Misc. Dkt. No 2015-02 7 May 2015 Appellate Counsel for the Petitioner: Lieutenant
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 17, 2009 Session
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE November 17, 2009 Session KATHY MICHELLE FOWLER v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Direct Appeal from the Criminal Court for Davidson County No. 2005-C-1625
More informationNo. 51,450-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * versus * * * * *
Judgment rendered August 9, 2017. Application for rehearing may be filed within the delay allowed by Art. 992, La. C. Cr. P. No. 51,450-KA COURT OF APPEAL SECOND CIRCUIT STATE OF LOUISIANA * * * * * STATE
More information2017COA143. No. 16CA1361, Robertson v. People Criminal Law Criminal Justice Records Sealing. In this consolidated appeal addressing petitions to seal
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationNotes as to NAAUSA response to GAO questions regarding restitution.
Notes as to NAAUSA response to GAO questions regarding restitution. 101419: GAO Study of the U.S. Courts Authority to Award Restitution Questions for: National Association of Assistant U.S. Attorneys (NAAUSA)
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS In re BRITTANY RAE KLOCEK. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Petitioner-Appellant, FOR PUBLICATION November 30, 2010 9:05 a.m. v No. 292993 Washtenaw Circuit Court BRITTANEY
More information18 USC 3006A. NB: This unofficial compilation of the U.S. Code is current as of Jan. 4, 2012 (see
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PART II - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 201 - GENERAL PROVISIONS 3006A. Adequate representation of defendants (a) Choice of Plan. Each United States district court,
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 2254 (PERSONS IN STATE CUSTODY) 1) The attached form is
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT COOKEVILLE May 31, 2006 Session Heard at Boys State 1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT COOKEVILLE May 31, 2006 Session Heard at Boys State 1 WILLIAM L. SMITH V. VIRGINIA LEWIS, WARDEN, ET AL. Appeal by permission from the Court of Criminal Appeals Circuit
More informationState v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82
State v. Camper, September Term 2008, No. 82 CRIMINAL LAW - MARYLAND RULE 4-215 - The harmless error doctrine does not apply to violations of Maryland Rule 4-215(a)(3). Consequently, a trial court s failure
More informationRhode Island False Claims Act
Rhode Island False Claims Act 9-1.1-1. Name of act. [Effective until February 15, 2008.] This chapter may be cited as the State False Claims Act. 9-1.1-2. Definitions. [Effective until February 15, 2008.]
More informationDepartment of Legislative Services
Department of Legislative Services Maryland General Assembly 2008 Session SB 972 FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE Senate Bill 972 Judicial Proceedings (Senator Forehand) Identity Fraud - Seizure and Forfeiture This
More informationRULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS (Revised effective January 1, 2011)
RULES OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS (Revised effective January 1, 2011) TITLE I. INTRODUCTION Rule 1. Title and Scope of Rules; Definitions. 2. Seal. TITLE II. APPEALS FROM JUDGMENTS AND
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION RICHARD HAMBLEN ) ) v. ) No. 3:08-1034 ) JUDGE CAMPBELL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) MEMORANDUM I. Introduction Pending before
More information