Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 13-014 SECTION "N" (3)
07-28-2014
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. THEODORE PLANTANITIS
ORDER AND REASONS
Presently before the Court is Defendant's motion seeking an order requiring the United States Marshals Service for the Eastern District of Louisiana ("Marshal") to furnish Defendant with transportation and subsistence expenses in connection with the re-arraignment proceeding scheduled to take place on Wednesday, August 20, 2014. See Rec. Doc. 41. Having carefully reviewed applicable law, including 18 U.S.C. § 4285, Rules 10 and 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and jurisprudence interpreting those provisions, IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as stated herein.
Specifically, the motion is granted to the extent that the Marshal must provide the funding necessary for Defendant's non-custodial transportation from Sacramento, California, to New Orleans, Louisiana. In so ordering, the Court leaves to the Marshal's discretion the particular method and timing of this travel, but expects and understands that the Marshal will promptly consult with defense counsel to determine the most cost efficient means by which to ensure Defendant's timely appearance in New Orleans. Further, the sum expended shall not exceed the amount authorized for such travel by 5 U.S.C. §5702(a). See 18 U.S.C. § 4285.
Because § 4285 authorizes the Court to order payment of only necessary expenses incurred in traveling "to the place where his appearance is required," the motion is denied relative to return transportation or any subsistence expenses incurred while Defendant is in New Orleans. See 18 U.S.C. § 4285; United States v. James, 762 F. Supp.1 (D.D.C. 1991)(no authorization to order the Marshal to pay for return trip); see also United States v. Stone, Criminal Action No. 10-2123, 2012 WL 345267 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 1, 2012) (§4285 does not authorize order directing payment of expenses during trial); United States v. Mendoza, 734 F. Supp. 2d 281, 284-86 (E.D.N.Y. 2010)(same).
Although the Court otherwise would be amenable to considering a request from Defendant to have the re-arraignment proceeding by videotape, Rule 11, unlike Rule 10, of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, absent unusual circumstances not present here, appears to require a personal appearance before the district judge. See Fed. Rules Crim. Pr. 10(a)-(c) and 11(b); Rule 10 Advisory Committee Notes (2002 Amendments); see also United States v. Klos, Criminal Action No. 11-233, 2013 WL 223754, *4 (May 20, 2013); United States v. Fried, Criminal Action No. 13-1499, 2013 WL 6484328, *1-2 (Dec. 10, 2013).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 28th day of July 2014.
/s/_________
KURT D. ENGELHARDT
United States District Judge
Clerk to Copy:
Counsel of Record
United States Marshal for the Eastern District of Louisiana
(Attention: Chief Deputy Doug Farrell and Deputy Scott Perry)