U.S. v. Bortels, 91-1988
| Decision Date | 06 May 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-1988,91-1988 |
| Citation | 962 F.2d 558 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aileen BORTELS, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
John A. Smietanka, U.S. Atty. Julie Ann Woods, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued and briefed), Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff-appellee.
James A. Christopherson (argued and briefed), Blakeslee, Chambers, Petterson, Dalrymple & Christopherson, Traverse City, Mich., for defendant-appellant.
Before: NELSON and BOGGS, Circuit Judges, and KRUPANSKY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Aileen Bortels (appellant) initially had been indicted for assaulting, resisting or interfering with a United States Deputy Marshal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111, and harboring or concealing a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071. On June 4, 1991, the appellant pleaded guilty to the § 111 violations. Subsequently, the court sentenced Bortels to six months imprisonment and a one year period of supervised release with the condition that appellant may have no contact, directly or indirectly, with anyone who has been convicted of a felony, particularly Cohen, during this one year term. Appellant appealed the court imposed condition of her supervised release.
The charges against Bortels arose from an incident that occurred on April 20, 1991, when she was involved in a high speed chase while fleeing from Michigan State Police and a plain clothes Deputy United States Marshal after she was informed that her passenger, Cohen, was under arrest for violating his parole. The appellant admitted that she drove the vehicle at speeds reaching at least 50 to 55 miles per hour in residential streets and 70 to 75 miles per hour on an expressway. The chase ended when the appellant rammed into a marked Michigan State Police cruiser and an unmarked U.S. Marshal Service vehicle. Thereafter, both the appellant and Cohen were arrested.
After being held without bond for four months because the magistrate thought she was a flight risk and may try to break her lover-Cohen out of jail, the court sentenced appellant to a six month period of incarceration and a one year period of supervised release in which she was prohibited from associating with Cohen or other convicted felons. Prior to sentencing, the court concluded that appellant would not be in jail but for her association with Cohen, recognizing that her rehabilitation would be aided if she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doss v. State
...of speech and association when those conditions bear a reasonable relationship to the goals of probation."); United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 1992) (per curiam) ("This Circuit mandates that where a condition of supervised release is reasonably related to the dual goals ......
- U.S. v. Boyce
-
George v. La. Dep't of Pub. Safety & Corr.
...is not the sole goal; the public's protection is an equally weighty and occasionally overriding one. See, e.g., United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 1992); accord United States v. Balderas, 358 F. App'x 575, 579 (5th Cir. 2009). In addition, while the termination of such pe......
- Rand v. US
-
Unacceptable Collateral Damage: the Danger of Probation Conditions Restricting the Right to Have Children
...probation. Id. at Ch. 7, Pt. A (2)(b). 39. United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 1999). 40. Crandon, 173 F.3d at 128. 41. 962 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1992). 42. United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558, 559 (6th Cir. 1992). 43. Bortels, 962 F.2d at 559. 44. Id. at 560. 45. 265 F. Su......
-
Unacceptable Collateral Damage: the Danger of Probation Conditions Restricting the Right to Have Children
...probation. Id. at Ch. 7, Pt. A (2)(b). 39. United States v. Crandon, 173 F.3d 122, 127 (3d Cir. 1999). 40. Crandon, 173 F.3d at 128. 41. 962 F.2d 558 (6th Cir. 1992). 42. United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558, 559 (6th Cir. 1992). 43. Bortels, 962 F.2d at 559. 44. Id. at 560. 45. 265 F. Su......
-
Anti-prostitution zones: justifications for abolition.
...(124) 18 U.S.C.A. app. 5B1.3(b) (2001). (125) See United States v. Turner, 44 F.3d 900, 903 (10th Cir. 1995); United States v. Bortels, 962 F.2d 558, 560 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Showalter, 933 F.2d 573, 575-76 (7th Cir. 1991); Fiore v. United States, 696 F.2d 205, 208 (2d Cir. 198......