Opinion
CASE NO.: 2:06-cr-112
05-27-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. YALONDA THOMAS, Defendant.
JUDGE SMITH
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Yalonda Thomas' pro se Motion for Expungement (Doc. 27). The Government has not responded. For the reasons that follow, Defendant's Motion for Expungement is DENIED.
Defendant Yalonda Thomas was sentenced on April 18, 2007, to two years of probation, including three months of home confinement and 50 hours of community service for knowingly making false and fictitious statements to a firearm dealer during her acquisition of five firearms on four separate occasions. Defendant represented that she was the true purchaser of the firearms, when in fact the firearms were purchased for another.
Defendant seeks to have this conviction expunged so that she can apply for nursing school to further her career in the nursing field and to better understand caring for her son with sickle-cell and developmental delays.
No general statutory basis exists for expungement of valid criminal conviction records. Congress has provided for expungement of criminal records only in specific circumstances, such as when a person convicted of a simple possession of a controlled substance was under age 21 at the time of the offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c); and 21 U.S.C. § 844.
The Court does however have inherent equitable power to order the expungement of criminal records. See United States v. Doe, 556 F.2d 391, 393 (6th Cir. 1977). Nonetheless, such power is of "exceedingly narrow scope." Rogers v. Slaughter, 469 F.2d 1084, 1085 (5th Cir. 1972). Courts may use this inherent authority to expunge "provided the case presents extraordinary circumstances." Geary v. United States, 901 F.2d 679, 679 (8th Cir. 1990).
Thus, invocation of the courts' inherent power to expunge criminal records is to be reserved only for extreme and compelling circumstances, such as those involving illegal convictions, convictions under statutes later deemed unconstitutional, and convictions obtained through governmental misconduct. United States v. Robinson, 79 F.3d 1149, 1996 WL 107129, * 2 (6th Cir. 1996). Conversely, courts have uniformly denied expungement requests regarding valid convictions. Id.
The limited and cautious use of the judicial equitable expungement power stems from a recognition of the government's strong and legitimate interest in maintaining criminal records. Retention of criminal records aids in effective law enforcement, a purpose reflected in Congress' requirement that the Attorney General "acquire, collect, classify, and preserve" criminal records. 28 U.S.C. § 534(a)(1). In addition, maintaining records of valid criminal convictions helps preserve uniform sentencing under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For example, sentencing ranges under the Guidelines reflect, in part, a defendant's past criminal history. U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1. Also, these records assist in the enforcement of certain statutory provisions that deprive convicted felons of important civil rights. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 922 (prohibiting convicted felons from possessing firearms). Expungement of criminal records detracts from all of these legitimate governmental interests.
Expungement typically is not appropriate unless unwarranted adverse consequences outweigh the public interest in maintaining criminal records. In United States v. Wiley, 89 F. Supp.2d 909, 912 (S.D. Ohio 1999), the Court held that the fact that a felon's criminal record impeded his ability to obtain gainful employment did not justify the expungement of a valid conviction as the current hardship was a natural and probable consequence of his legitimate felony conviction. Id. at 911-12.
The Court recognizes and commends Ms. Thomas' desire to further her education and career, however, this is the exact situation addressed by Judge Rice in the Wiley decision. The fact that Defendant's criminal record may impede her ability to further her career is a natural and probable consequence of her felony conviction. Defendant has failed to present any hardship that would outweigh the Government's long-recognized interest in maintaining complete criminal records. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Expungement lacks the extraordinary or extreme circumstances that other courts have found sufficient to justify expungement. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendant's request for expungement.
The Clerk shall remove Document 27 from the Court's pending motions list.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________
GEORGE C. SMITH, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT