U.S. v. Garcia

• Decision Date: 25 August 2003
• Docket Number: No. 03-10067.,No. 03-10071.,03-10067.,03-10071.
• Citation: 340 F.3d 1013
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Ramon GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Michael Powers, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

340 F.3d 1013

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Ramon GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward Michael Powers, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-10067.

No. 03-10071.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted May 29, 2003.

Filed August 25, 2003.

Dennis P. Riordan, Donald M. Horgan, and Dylan Schaffer, Riordan & Horgan, San Francico, California, attorneys for defendant-appellant Edward Michael Powers.

Matthew Pavone, San Francico, California, attorney for defendant-appellant Jose Ramon Garcia.

Melinda L. Haag, Assistant United States Attorney, Oakland, California, attorney for plaintiff-appellee, the United States of America.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Martin J. Jenkins, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-00-00105-MJJ.

Before: Harry PREGERSON, Stephen REINHARDT, and Susan P. GRABER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION

REINHARDT, Circuit Judge.

Edward Michael Powers and Jose Ramon Garcia are former correctional officers at Pelican Bay State Prison who were convicted of conspiring with other correctional officers to organize stabbings, assaults, and intimidation of selected inmates by other inmates from July 1992 through August 1994. A jury found them guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 241, in that they "conspir[ed] to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate ... person[s] ... in the free exercise or enjoyment of ... right[s] or privilege[s] secured to [them] by the Constitution or laws of the United States." They were sentenced to 84 and 76 months in prison, respectively. The defendants moved the district court to release them on bail pending their appeal to this court. The district court denied their motion, holding that they had not shown "exceptional reasons" justifying bail, as required under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). In this opinion we address for the first time the meaning of the term "exceptional reasons." We vacate the district court's ruling and remand for further proceedings in light of this opinion.¹

In general, persons convicted of federal crimes are not eligible for release pending appeal unless a court finds

(A) by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released ... and

(B) that the appeal is not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in —

(i) reversal,

(ii) an order for a new trial,

(iii) a sentence that does not include a term of imprisonment, or

(iv) a reduced sentence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the expected duration of the appeal process.

18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1). Under the Mandatory Detention Act of 1990, however, violent offenders, as well as those convicted of drug offenses with a maximum sentence of at least ten years in prison and those convicted of any offense with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment or death, are not eligible for release simply because they meet these requirements. 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b)(2). As to such offenders, Congress has imposed an additional condition: Persons subject to the 1990 Act are not eligible for release unless "it is clearly shown that there are exceptional reasons why [their] detention would not be appropriate." 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c).²

In the case before us, the district court found, and the government does not dispute, that the defendants meet the generally applicable requirements for eligibility for release pending appeal—those contained in § 3143(b)(1). The district court concluded that

defendants, on this record, have established that they are not flight risks and pose no danger to the community or individuals outside of the prison context for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 3143(b)1. Moreover, in this Court's view, the record supports a finding that the defendants' appeals are not for purposes of delay, and that said appeals raise substantial questions of law or fact likely to result in reversal or an order for a new trial.

The only disagreement concerns whether Powers and Garcia satisfy the additional condition regarding "exceptional reasons" contained in § 3145(c). The district court held that they do not.

In reviewing a district court's denial of release pending appeal we consider the district court's legal determinations de novo. Cf. United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279, 1281-84 (9th Cir.1985) (applying de novo review to district court's interpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 3143). We review the district court's underlying factual determinations for clear error. See United States v. Peden, 891 F.2d 514, 520 (5th Cir.1989); cf. Handy, 761 F.2d at 1283 (referring to district court's underlying factual determinations "findings").

The primary reason that Garcia and Powers offer as "exceptional" so as to justify release is the district court's finding that they "pose no danger to the community or individuals outside of the prison context." In support of this view they argue that the offense of which they were convicted —organizing assaults on selected inmates by other inmates—shows that they tend to violence, if at all, only when acting as prison guards, and only "for the purpose of imposing order on often riotous prison yards." Outside the prison context, they assert, they have never been accused of any wrongdoing and have no propensity for violence. Because they are no longer working in a prison facility or in any other law enforcement capacity, they believe that their conviction for a violent offense does not reflect a risk that they would constitute a danger to others if released while pursuing their appeal. As confirmation of this conclusion they note that they have been free pending and during trial and sentencing, and have shown that they behave in a non-violent manner in the outside world.

Garcia and Powers also argue that federalism concerns provide an exceptional reason justifying their release. Noting that in their case the federal government is prosecuting and incarcerating law enforcement officers of a state, they submit that "the federal-state relationship [would be] improperly strained" if they are incarcerated on the basis of an unfair trial and that the risk of such a strain would be increased if they are imprisoned before we have decided their appeal.

Garcia proposes one further "exceptional reason," which does not apply to Powers. Shortly after his conviction, Garcia was diagnosed with lymphoma and was, at least at the time the matter was presented to the district court, undergoing chemotherapy. In rejecting this reason, the district court found the record inconclusive as to Garcia's prognosis and as to the likelihood of his incapacity due to his illness or the treatment, and also noted that he could receive appropriate medical care in prison.

The district court was understandably uncertain as to the precise meaning of the additional condition that offenders subject to the provisions of § 3145(c) must meet to be eligible for release pending appeal. As the district judge correctly observed, "[t]he parameters for determining when `exceptional circumstances' exists remains unclear because the term is not defined within the statute, nor has it been given any precise definition by way of appellate review to date." This court has, in fact, never heretofore considered the meaning of the term in a reported opinion, although individual members of the court have expressed their views on the subject while concurring in and dissenting from our order denying rehearing en banc to the denial of bail in United States v. Koon, 6 F.3d 561 (9th Cir.1993) (order affirming the denial of bail to police officers who physically abused a suspect). On an issue that arises so frequently and that so greatly affects the lives of defendants and their families, as well as the interests of society, we have a duty to provide some guidance, for whatever limited use it may be.³

This is a case in which a plain reading of the statute offers little if any help. Moreover, not only does a reading of the statute not provide much assistance with regard to the meaning of "exceptional reasons," the legislative history is also "sparse and uninformative." United States v. DiSomma, 951 F.2d 494, 497 (2d Cir.1991). The most assistance, as the DiSomma court noted, id., is found in a 1989 letter from the Justice Department to the Bill's sponsor, then-Senator Paul Simon. Letter from Assistant Attorney General Carol T. Crawford to Honorable Paul Simon (July 26, 1989) ("Justice Department Letter") (available as part of record in DiSomma).⁴ While the original proposed legislation contained no exception for extraordinary circumstances, in its letter the Justice Department proposed creating one, and offered two hypothetical situations in which it should apply. Those situations both involved defendants who were elderly or injured and who raised legal issues not previously decided by the courts to which they appealed. In the Justice Department's view it appears that exceptional reasons exist where, due to a truly unusual circumstance or combination of circumstances, it would be unreasonable, despite the general policy favoring incarceration contained in § 3145(c), to order a particular defendant to be incarcerated pending appeal. Cf. DiSomma, 951 F.2d at 497 (noting that Justice Department Letter describes circumstances that are "out of the ordinary"); Koon, 6 F.3d at 564 n. 8 (Reinhardt, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc) (noting that Justice Department Letter describes circumstances that "might make detention unduly harsh").

Court decisions addressing and applying the "exceptional reasons" provision have expressed varying views. See, e.g., United States v. Mostrom, 11 F.3d 93, 94 (8th Cir.1993) (per curiam) (holding that it did not constitute exceptional reasons that the Bureau of Prison's transportation system was generally...