Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-99-03153/USCOURTS-caDC-99-03153-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Archibald R. Schaffer III
Appellee
United States of America
Appellant

Document Text:

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Filed February 2, 2001

No. 99-3153

United States of America,

Appellant

v.

Archibald R. Schaffer III,

Appellee

On Motion to Dismiss as Moot

---------

Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams, Ginsburg,

Henderson, Rogers, and Tatel, Circuit Judges.*

Opinion for the Court en banc filed Per Curiam.

Per Curiam: On December 22, 2000, then-President Clinton granted a full and unconditional pardon to Archibald R.

Schaffer III, for his conviction in the District Court of

violating the anti-bribery provision of the Meat Inspection

Act, 21 U.S.C. s 622 (1994). Schaffer now moves this court

to dismiss the case as moot.

__________

* Judges Sentelle, Randolph, and Garland did not participate in

this matter.

USCA Case #99-3153 Document #573721 Filed: 02/02/2001 Page 1 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The parties agree that the pardon rendered moot the

ongoing appeals. They are quite right on this point. Accordingly, under well-established principles governing the disposition of cases rendered moot during the pendency of an

appeal, we hereby vacate the disputed panel decision in this

case and all underlying judgments, verdicts, and decisions of

the District Court.

I.

Because this case has had a long and curious history, we

offer a brief chronicle of the record leading to the instant

motion:

In the early summer of 1998, a jury found Schaffer guilty

on two counts of a seven count indictment--one for violating

the anti-bribery provision of the Meat Inspection Act and one

for providing unlawful gratuities to a public official. Persuaded that the prosecution had submitted insufficient evidence to

sustain the verdict, the District Court granted Schaffer's

motion for acquittal on both counts, United States v. Schaffer,

Cr. No. 96-0314 (D.D.C. Sept. 22, 1998) (order), and conditionally denied his request for a new trial, Schaffer, Cr. No.

96-0314 (D.D.C. Oct. 6, 1998) (order). The independent

counsel appealed. On July 23, 1999, a panel of this court

affirmed the District Court's judgment of acquittal on the

unlawful gratuities charge, reversed and reinstated the jury

verdict on the Meat Inspection Act charge, and remanded for

sentencing on the latter charge. Schaffer, 183 F.3d 833 (D.C.

Cir. 1999) ("Schaffer I").

Before this court's decision in Schaffer I was issued, Schaffer filed a second motion for a new trial, this time pursuant to

Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Schaffer cited the newly-found and arguably exculpatory testimony

of former Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, Alphonso Michael Espy, which had become available following

Espy's own acquittal in a related prosecution. Subsequently,

after the decision in Schaffer I issued, the District Court

granted Schaffer's Rule 33 motion for a new trial on the Meat

USCA Case #99-3153 Document #573721 Filed: 02/02/2001 Page 2 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Inspection Act charge. Schaffer, 83 F. Supp. 2d 52 (D.D.C.

1999).

The independent counsel again appealed, this time challenging the trial court's order granting a new trial. On June

27, 2000, a different panel of this court reversed the order

granting a new trial, reinstated the jury verdict on the Meat

Inspection Act charge, and remanded the case for sentencing.

Schaffer, 214 F.3d 1359 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("Schaffer II").

This court's ruling in Schaffer II set in motion two distinct

trajectories of response. First, the panel granted the independent counsel's unopposed motion to expedite issuance of

the panel's mandate to the District Court without, as would

be the normal case, waiting for any potential petitions for

rehearing and rehearing en banc to run their course. Schaffer, No. 99-3153 (D.C. Cir. July 17, 2000) (per curiam order).

On remand, Schaffer moved the trial court to delay sentencing pending the outcome of his petitions for rehearing and en

banc review in the Court of Appeals. The District Court

denied the motion and, on September 25, 2000, sentenced

Schaffer to a term of imprisonment of one year and one day.

Schaffer, 121 F. Supp. 2d 29 (D.D.C. 2000).

Second, on July 19, 2000, Schaffer filed petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc of the Schaffer II decision. The

Schaffer II panel denied the petition for rehearing three

months later. Schaffer, 229 F.3d 284 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (per

curiam order). Shortly thereafter, on November 22, 2000, the

full court granted Schaffer's petition for rehearing en banc,

vacated the panel's June 27, 2000 Schaffer II decision, and

scheduled oral argument for April 4, 2001. Schaffer, 234 F.3d

36 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (en banc) (per curiam order). In a

separate order, the court recalled the July 27, 2000 expedited

mandate, which had set in motion the September 25, 2000

sentencing. Schaffer, No. 99-3153 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 1, 2000)

(en banc) (per curiam order). On December 14, 2000, the full

court granted defendant's motion to continue his release

pending appeal. Schaffer, No. 99-3153 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 14,

2000) (en banc) (per curiam order).

USCA Case #99-3153 Document #573721 Filed: 02/02/2001 Page 3 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

On December 22, 2000, then-President Clinton granted a

full and unconditional pardon to Schaffer. Schaffer filed an

unopposed motion and memorandum to dismiss all pending

appeals as moot on January 4, 2001. In a supplemental

memorandum filed the next day, Schaffer urged this court to

remand the case to the District Court so that it might

determine what action, if any, should be taken to reconcile the

"unreversed" new trial order and the preceding conviction.

II.

The independent counsel, the appellant in this case, concedes that "these appeals are moot and that the Presidential

pardon ends all litigation." Response of United States to

Schaffer's Supplemental Memorandum at 2. We agree. In

making this concession, however, the prosecutor advances the

odd suggestion that Schaffer's conviction is established as a

matter of law. We disagree. Final judgment never has been

reached on this issue, because the appeals process was terminated prematurely.

Certainly, a pardon does not, standing alone, render Schaffer innocent of the alleged Meat Inspection Act violation. See

In re North, 62 F.3d 1434, 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (citing

United States v. Noonan, 906 F.2d 952, 960 (3d Cir. 1990)).

In fact, acceptance of a pardon may imply a confession of

guilt. See North, 62 F.3d at 1437 (citing Burdick v. United

States, 236 U.S. 79, 91, 94 (1915)). In the present case, the

pardon states only that Schaffer receive

A Full and Unconditional Pardon for his conviction in the

United State District Court for the District of the District [sic] of Columbia of the charge of violation of

Section 622, Title 21, United States Code, as set forth in

an indictment (Criminal Action No. 96-0314 (JR)), for

which he was sentenced on September twenty-fifth, 2000,

to one year and one day's imprisonment and fined five

thousand dollars ($5000).

Pres. William J. Clinton, Executive Grant of Clemency (Dec.

22, 2000). In other words, the pardon acts on Schaffer's

USCA Case #99-3153 Document #573721 Filed: 02/02/2001 Page 4 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

supposed conviction, without purporting to address Schaffer's

innocence or guilt.

Nevertheless, the independent counsel is wrong to suggest

that Schaffer's conviction is a fait accompli. Finality was

never reached on the legal question of Schaffer's guilt. The

District Court ordered a new trial following Espy's acquittal;

the prosecutor exercised a legitimate right to appeal that

order; a panel of this court reversed the order of the trial

court; the court expedited issuance of the mandate in Schaffer II; and Schaffer was sentenced on September 25, 2000.

However, the matter was never actually put to rest, because

this court granted Schaffer's petition for en banc review and

recalled the mandate on December 1, 2000. And in agreeing

to en banc review, this court vacated the panel decision in

Schaffer II. It was at that uncertain juncture that thenPresident Clinton pardoned Schaffer, thus rendering the case

moot.

When a case becomes moot on appeal, whether it be during

initial review or in connection with consideration of a petition

for rehearing or rehearing en banc, this court generally

vacates the District Court's judgment, vacates any outstanding panel decisions, and remands to the District Court with

direction to dismiss. See U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v.

Bonner Mall P'ship, 513 U.S. 18, 25, 29 (1994); United States

v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39 (1950); Clarke v.

United States, 915 F.2d 699, 706-08 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en

banc); Flynt v. Weinberger, 762 F.2d 134, 135-36 (D.C. Cir.

1985). Because the present mootness results not from any

voluntary acts of settlement or withdrawal by Schaffer, but

from the unpredictable grace of a presidential pardon, vacatur is here just and appropriate. See U.S. Bancorp, 513 U.S.

at 24-25.

Given this posture of the case, the efficacy of the jury

verdict against Schaffer remains only an unanswered question

lost to the same mootness that the independent counsel so

readily concedes. The same is true of Schaffer's claim of

innocence. That claim will never again be tried.

USCA Case #99-3153 Document #573721 Filed: 02/02/2001 Page 5 of 6
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

We hereby vacate all opinions, judgments, and verdicts of

this court and the District Court relating to the Meat Inspection Act charge. The matter will be remanded to the District

Court with directions to dismiss the case as moot.

So ordered.

USCA Case #99-3153 Document #573721 Filed: 02/02/2001 Page 6 of 6