Opinion
Civil Action No. JKB-17-2952
10-13-2017
DEBRA ELAINE WILLIAMS, Petitioner v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent
(Related Crim. Case JFM-90-0135) MEMORANDUM
On October 2, 2017, Debra Williams filed a letter with this court asking that her 1991 conviction for money laundering be expunged. ECF 1 (civil case); Mot. Expunge, ECF 1240 (crim. case). For the reasons outlined below, that request is DENIED and this case DISMISSED.
Ms. Williams did not submit the $5.00 filing fee or seek in forma pauperis status. In light of the case outcome, she will not be required to correct this deficiency. --------
DISCUSSION
On April 25, 1991, Ms. Williams was sentenced to eight months of probation for her role in a money laundering scheme. See Docket, United States v. Williams, Criminal No. 90-cr-0135 (D. Md.). Ms. Williams is employed, but now asks this court to expunge her conviction so that she can become a business owner. Mot. Expunge at p. 1.
There is no federal statute or regulation that gives district courts general authority to expunge convictions. There are a handful of federal statutes that give district courts specific authority to expunge convictions, but those statutes apply only in very narrow circumstances, none present here. See 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) (2012) (allowing amendment of inaccurate public records); 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c) (2012) (allowing expungement of certain federal drug-possession offenses).
In the absence of an authorizing statute, a federal court has a limited equitable power to expunge convictions, and that power can be used only in "exceptional circumstances." Allen v. Webster, 742 F.2d 153, 155 (4th Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 956-57 (3rd Cir. 1990) (explaining that "a federal court has the inherent power to expunge an arrest and conviction record," but that "granting such relief is confined to extreme circumstances"). Thus, courts have found that expungement of a conviction is appropriate if "necessary to preserve basic legal rights," Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (quoting United States v. McMains, 540 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1976)), such as when the conviction was obtained unconstitutionally or as a result of government misconduct, or when the record is simply inaccurate. See Allen, 742 F.2d at 154 (finding expungement inappropriate because the statute under which the defendant was tried was constitutional and there was no evidence of "irregularity" in the proceedings); United States v. Scott, 793 F.2d 117, 118 (5th Cir. 1986) (holding that a district court cannot expunge a conviction when "the validity of the original conviction is unquestioned"); United States v. Gary, 206 F. Supp. 2d 741, 741 (D. Md. 2002) (explaining that the court's power to expunge was "limited to [instances of] an unlawful arrest or conviction, or to correct a clerical error").
In this case, Ms. Williams makes no showing that her conviction was obtained unconstitutionally or as a result of government misconduct, or that the record is merely a clerical error. Instead, she asks this court to expunge her conviction based on her assertion that the incident occurred long ago and she has become a model citizen. However, Ms. Williams pleaded guilty to the crime, thus underscoring the validity of the conviction. Accordingly, there are no exceptional circumstances to provide an appropriate basis for this court to expunge her conviction.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, Ms. Williams's Motion to Expunge is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. DATE: October 13, 2017
/s/_________
James K. Bredar
United States District Judge