U.S. v. Smith

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. CLAYTON B. SMITH, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division

Date published: Nov 6, 2007

CASE NO. 5:05CR419 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 6, 2007)

Opinion

CASE NO. 5:05CR419.

November 6, 2007

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

PETER ECONOMUS, District Judge

This matter is before the Court upon Clayton B. Smith's ("Petitioner") Motion for Bond, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1), pending disposition of his petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Dkt. # 45).

The Bail Reform Act of 1984, of which 18 U.S.C. § 1343(b)(1) is a part, does not apply to § 2255 habeas proceedings. Fonseca v. United States, 129 F.Supp.2d 1096, 1098 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (citingUnited States v. Mett, 41 F.3d 1281, 1282 (9^th Cir. 1994); United States v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130, 139 (D.C. Cir. 1986); Cherek v. United States, 767 F.2d 335, 337 (7^th Cir. 1985); United States v. Dansker, 561 F.2d 485 (3^rd Cir. 1977)). Rather, as the language of § 1343(b) makes clear, the statute applies only to direct appeals, not to collateral attacks.

While a federal court possesses the inherent power to release a habeas petitioner on bond pending a disposition of his habeas claims, Jago v. United States District Court, 570 F.2d 618, 623 (6^th Cir. 1978), such release is proper only where the petitioner has met a more stringent standard than that required under § 1343(b). Dotson v. Clark, 900 F.2d 77, 79.

In order to receive bail pending a decision on the merits [of a habeas petition], prisoners must be able to show not only a substantial claim of law based on the facts surrounding the petition but also the existence of `some circumstances making the motion for bail exceptional and deserving of special treatment in the interests of justice.

Id. (quoting Aronson v. May, 85 S.Ct. 3, 5 (1964)).

Petitioner has shown neither a substantial claim of law, nor any circumstances making his motion for bail exceptional or deserving of special treatment. Petitioner's Motion for Bond is, therefore, DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.