United States v. Hall , 677 F. App'x 383 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                              FEB 21 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No.   02-10662
    Plaintiff-Appellee,               D.C. No. CR-71-00422-DCB
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    JOHN MERRILL HALL,
    Defendant-Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the District of Arizona
    David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted February 14, 2017**
    Before:        GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
    John Merrill Hall appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion
    for expunction of his criminal record and his motion for reconsideration. We have
    jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s request for oral
    argument is denied.
    Hall argues that the court should have granted his motions because
    expungement is in the interests of justice. He contends that his criminal record
    could disrupt his personal and business relationships, and impede him from
    running for public office. We review de novo. See United States v. Hovsepian,
    
    359 F.3d 1144
    , 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
    Hall’s argument fails because a district court does not have jurisdiction to
    expunge a criminal record based solely on equitable considerations. See United
    States v. Sumner, 
    226 F.3d 1005
    , 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). While a court may
    expunge the record of an unlawful arrest or conviction, see 
    id., Hall has
    not made a
    showing of either here. His suggestion that there was insufficient evidence to
    arrest or convict him absent the illegally intercepted calls is not supported by the
    record, which he concedes is silent on that question. In any event, even if Hall
    could show that his arrest or conviction were unlawful, the district court did not err
    in denying his motion. Although Hall’s motion was filed 27 years after the
    indictment against him was dismissed, he was unable to identify any adverse
    effects from his criminal record during that period. These circumstances do not
    warrant the “extraordinary remedy” of expungement. See United States v. Crowell,
    
    374 F.3d 790
    , 796 (9th Cir. 2004).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                 02-10662
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-10662

Citation Numbers: 677 F. App'x 383

Filed Date: 2/21/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023