Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03339/USCOURTS-ca10-92-03339-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John D. Schuermann
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

FIL!, .. !.) UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United Stat.es Court of Appeal, 

Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

JOHN D. SCHUERMANN, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

NOV 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-3339 

(D.C. No. 91-10113-01) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, ANDERSON and TACHA, 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. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying him 

release pending sentencing. Appellant was subject to the 

mandatory detention provisions of the Bail Reform Act. See 18 

* 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: 92-3339 Document: 010110145656 Date Filed: 11/05/1992 Page: 1 
U.S.C. §§ 3142 (f) (1), 3143 (a) (2), 

for appellant's release. Both 

(b) (2). The government moved 

the government and appellant 

contended there were exceptional reasons for appellant's release 

under 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c). The district court considered the 

circumstances recited by the parties and determined those 

circumstances did not present an exceptional reason for 

defendant's release. 

"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). 

Whether the particular circumstances of a case present an 

exceptional reason for release is a mixed question of law and 

fact. See Campbell v. Bartlett, Nos. 88-2711, 88-2854, slip op. 

at 7-8 (10th Cir. Oct. 6, 1992) (holding · that whether the facts 

satisfy a prescribed statutory standard is a mixed question of law 

and fact) . 

The only two circuits to have addressed what may constitute 

an exceptional reason for release have agreed that "a case by case 

evaluation is essential." United States v. DiSomma, 951 F.2d 494, 

497 (2d Cir. 1991); accord United States v. Herrera-Soto, 961 F.2d 

645, 647 (7th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). The Second Circuit has 

stressed that district judges should not be foreclosed "from the 

full exercise of discretion in these matters" and that their 

discretion "is constrained only by the language of the statute: 

'exceptional reasons.'" United States v. DiSomma, 951 F.2d at 

497. 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-3339 Document: 010110145656 Date Filed: 11/05/1992 Page: 2 
Based upon our review of the record and briefs on appeal, we 

conclude the district court did not err in determining that the 

circumstances of this case did not present an exceptional reason 

for appellant's release pending sentencing. Therefore, the order 

of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas 

denying appellant release pending sentencing is AFFIRMED. The 

mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

PER CURIAM 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-3339 Document: 010110145656 Date Filed: 11/05/1992 Page: 3