United States v. Ruedlinger ( 1997 )

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 23 1997
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. No. 97-3357
(D.C. No. 97-CR-40012-01-RDR)
DOUGLAS O. RUEDLINGER, (D. Kan.)
Defendant-Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before BRORBY, KELLY, and HENRY, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore
ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court
generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order
and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Defendant Douglas O. Ruedlinger appeals from an order of the district
court granting the government’s motion to revoke defendant’s release on bail
pending trial. We affirm.
In No. 97-40012, defendant was charged in a twenty-four-count indictment
with conspiracy, interstate transportation of money obtained by fraud, money
laundering, mail fraud, bankruptcy fraud, extortion and perjury. Trial in that case
is scheduled to begin approximately one week after the completion of his
co-defendant’s trial, which is scheduled to begin January 20, 1988. In April
1997, defendant was found guilty of ten counts of mail fraud, two counts of wire
fraud, and one count of money laundering. (No. 96-40045.) He is to be
sentenced on that conviction January 16, 1998.
Defendant was released on bail in No. 96-40045, subject to various
conditions. The district court incorporated those conditions into the bail order in
No. 97-40012. Defendant was found to have violated those release conditions in
No. 96-40045. However, the court continued bail with the imposition of several
additional conditions including one that he should “not transfer directly or
indirectly personal or business funds, real or personal property, with a value in
excess of $500, except with the express written consent of the court.” Appellee’s
Supp. App. A, p. 3.
-2-
Subsequently, defendant received a refund on a car rental for approximately
$900.00. He received verbal permission from his pretrial services officer to
deposit that check. He also received an income tax refund of $1,311.53 which he
also received verbal permission to deposit. Thereafter, defendant received a tax
refund of $113,429.57. This check he divided into eleven cashiers checks and
disbursed. After disbursement, he provided an accounting to his pretrial services
officer. Defendant also executed an agreement to sell some of his property for
$250,000.00. He did not notify anyone of that transaction. The government then
filed a petition to revoke defendant’s pretrial release pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3148(b).
The district court, held that the evidence was clear and convincing that
defendant had intentionally violated the terms of his release and that it was
unlikely he would abide by any conditions or combination of conditions of
release. The court ordered defendant detained pending trial. Defendant appeals.
“Appellate review of detention or release orders is plenary as to mixed
questions of law and fact and independent, with due deference to the district
court’s purely factual findings.” United States v. Stricklin, 932 F.2d 1353, 1355
(10th Cir. 1991).
Defendant admits he did not have the express written consent of the court
to disperse the funds. See Defendant’s Br. at 8. However, he contends he
-3-
attempted to obtain that request and that he was acting in accordance with his
previous acts which had not been found violative of his bail conditions. He
asserts that he never received written permission to deposit the first two checks,
and, apparently, concludes that he was therefore released from the written consent
provision. Defendant is wrong. The distinction between receiving oral
permission to deposit checks and receiving no permission to disburse money is
obvious. The evidence is clear and convincing that defendant violated the
conditions of his release.
The district court also correctly found that it was unlikely defendant would
abide by any additional conditions imposed. He had already violated his bail
conditions once. The current hearing related to his violation of the conditions
imposed as a consequence of his first violation. Defendant’s prior behavior
provided ample evidence for the district court to conclude that he would not
comply with any conditions imposed.
We find no error in the district court’s determination that defendant
violated the conditions of his release and that it was unlikely he would abide by
any conditions or combination of conditions of release. The judgment of the
United States District Court for the District of Kansas is AFFIRMED.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
PER CURIAM
-4-