Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07078/USCOURTS-ca10-90-07078-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

FILED 

United States Court of Ap:>ea 1 s 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT SEP O G 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

CHARLES MORRIS RAY, 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondent-Appellee. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) No. 90-7078 

) (D.C. No. 89-291-C) 

) (E.D. Okla.) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before SEYMOUR, EBEL, Circuit Judges, and BABCOCK,** District 

Judge. 

**Honorable Lewis T. Babcock, District Judge, 

District Court for the District of Colorado, 

designation. 

United States 

sitting by 

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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

* 

The case is therefore ordered 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-7078 Document: 010110089384 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 1 
Petitioner appeals from an order of the district court 

denying his motion to expunge his arrest and conviction records. 

We affirm. 

Petitioner pleaded guilty to mail fraud under 18 u.s.c. 

§ 371. The information alleged that petitioner conspired with 

various county commissioners to deprive Oklahoma citizens of their 

right to honest and fair government. After the Supreme Court 

rendered its decision in McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 

356 (1987), holding that 18 u.s.c. § 1341, a mail fraud statute, 

protects property rights, not the intangible rights of the 

citizenry to good government, petitioner filed a motion pursuant 

to 28 u.s.c. § 2255 to have his judgment and conviction vacated. 

Based on McNally, the district court granted the motion. 

Petitioner then moved the district court to expunge his 

arrest and conviction records. 

motion. 

The district court denied the 

Petitioner contends that the district court abused its 

discretion in not expunging the records, because there was no 

valid constitutional basis for the criminal charges. He also 

asserts that the records unconstitutionally restrict his 

activities because he must produce these records to rebut the 

presumption of his conviction each time he applies for a job, 

seeks credit, or attempts to purchase a firearm. We disagree. 

The district court has the discretion to order that arrest or 

conviction records be expunged. United States v. Friesen, 853 

F.2d 816, 817-18 (10th Cir. 1988). The discretion, however, is 

2 

Appellate Case: 90-7078 Document: 010110089384 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 2 
• • 

narrow and should be exercised in only extreme or unusual cases. 

Bromley v. Crisp, 561 F.2d 1351, 1364 (10th Cir. 1977)(en bane), 

cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908 (1978); United States v. Linn, 513 F.2d 

925, 927 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 836 (1975). The 

appropriateness of expunction must be decided on a case-by-case 

basis. Linn, 513 F.2d at 927. 

No federal statute provides for expunction of arrest or 

conviction records. United States v. Schnitzer, 567 F.2d 536, 539 

(2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 907 (1978). Expunction has 

been held appropriate when an arrest is unlawful, see Linn, 513 

F.2d at 927-28, or when a conviction is unconstitutional, United 

States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 957 (3d Cir. 1990); Reyes v. 

Supervisor of Drug Enforcement Admin., 834 F.2d 1093, 1098 (1st 

Cir. 1987). Courts, however, do not automatically expunge 

official records when a conviction is overturned on constitutional 

grounds. Noonan, 906 F.2d at 957. 

Because there is no automatic right to expunction, we must 

balance the government's interest in maintaining records for law 

enforcement purposes against the individual's right to privacy. 

See Linn, 513 F.2d at 927. Petitioner claims that his privacy 

concerns override the government's interest in keeping these 

records and that he will be harmed if the records are not 

expunged. These conclusory claims are speculative and unsupported 

by the record. Petitioner has failed to show that his arrest and 

conviction records have been or will 

See id. at 928. 

be used improperly or 

intrusively against him. Additionally, he has 

failed to show that he will suffer adverse consequences if the 

3 

Appellate Case: 90-7078 Document: 010110089384 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 3 
• 

government retains the records. See United States v. Bagley, 899 

F.2d 707, 708 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 343 (1990). 

Thus, petitioner has failed to prove his interests override the 

government's interest in retaining the records. See Linn, 513 

F.2d at 928. 

Accordingly, we conclude the district court did not abuse its 

discretion in denying the motion to expunge. The judgment of the 

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma 

is AFFIRMED. 

Entered for the Court 

Lewis T. Babcock 

District Judge 

4 

Appellate Case: 90-7078 Document: 010110089384 Date Filed: 09/06/1991 Page: 4