Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20853/USCOURTS-ca5-19-20853-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Julia Ann Poff
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20853

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JULIA ANN POFF,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CR-669-1

Before JOLLY, JONES, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Pursuant to a written agreement with the Government, Julia Ann Poff 

pleaded guilty to transporting an explosive with the intent that the explosive 

be used to kill, injure, and intimidate, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 844(d), based 

on her mailing an improvised explosive device to President Barack Obama. 

The plea agreement waived Poff’s right to appeal or collaterally attack her 

conviction or sentence, reserving only the right to bring claims of ineffective 

assistance of counsel. She timely appealed from her judgment of conviction.

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

June 2, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-20853 Document: 00515438344 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/02/2020
No. 19-20853

2

In response to counsel’s motion to withdraw under Anders v. California, 

386 U.S. 738 (1967), Poff moves to proceed pro se and file a brief. We DENY 

the motion as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 

(5th Cir. 1998). However, we GRANT her 30 days to file a response to counsel’s 

Anders motion in addition to any remaining extension provided incarcerated 

prisoners under this court’s General Order 4 COVID-19, which was adopted on 

May 5, 2020, and remains in effect. She may raise any issues that she wishes 

to raise in that response. We DEFER ruling on the motion to withdraw until 

we receive Poff’s response or the time for filing a response expires.

The district court denied Poff’s pro se motion for release pending bail, 

and she appeals as well as moving this court for release. See FED. R. APP. P. 

9(b). The Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), establishes a presumption 

against release pending appeal for a convicted and sentenced defendant. To 

overcome that presumption, Poff must show, among other things, that her

appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal, a 

new trial, a noncustodial sentence, or a reduced sentence of imprisonment less 

than the total time already served plus the anticipated duration of the appeal 

process. § 3143(b)(1)(B). Poff’s arguments fail to overcome the presumption. 

Thus, her motion for release pending appeal is DENIED, and the district 

court’s order denying release is AFFIRMED.

We decline to consider Poff’s arguments that she should be released to 

home confinement under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), or Section 12003(b)(2) of 

the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, see Pub. L. 116-136, 

§12003(b)(2), 134 Stat. 281 (2020), because they were not presented to the 

district court and she has not shown extraordinary circumstances warranting 

this court’s review in the first instance, see Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 

183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.1999).

Case: 19-20853 Document: 00515438344 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/02/2020