UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

# fiLED NOV 132012 Clerk, u.s. D1stnct &uanKruptcy C1urts forthe District of Columbia
V. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Criminal No. 07-0029 (PLF) YASHIKAARCHER, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINIONAND ORDER This matter is before the Court on defendant Yashika Archer's motion to expunge her criminal record. Uponconsideration ofMs. Archer's motion, the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record in this case, the Court will deny Ms. Archer's motion. InFebruary 2007, Ms. Archer was charged in a two-count information with Interstate Communications, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 875(c) (Count One) and Threatening to Kidnap, Injure, orPhysically Damage, in violation of22 D.C. Code§ 407 (Count Two). Later that month, Ms. Archerpled guilty to Count Two, a misdemeanor; Count One was dismissed at the time ofsentencing. The Court sentenced Ms. Archer to 180 days of incarceration, with all but 20 days suspended, to be served on weekends, with three years of supervised release incorporating mental health treatment. See Judgment [Dkt. No. 14]. In addition, Ms. Archer was also ordered to pay $2,207.00 in restitution. Ms. Archer now requests that the Court expunge hercriminal record because this was her first conviction and the incidents giving rise to the case were "completely out of character" and "will unduly hinderherability to continue to work and deprive her offuturejobopportunities." Mot. to Expunge [Dkt. No. 21] at 2. 1 Ms. Archer does not contest her guilt or any ofthe circumstances surrounding her arrest and conviction. The court may orderexpungement where it is required or authorized by statute,
or "inexercise of [its] inherent equitable powers." Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2d 1226, 1231 (D.C. Cir. 1979). See id. at 1231 n.8 ("The power to order expungement is a partofthe general power ofthe federal courts to fashion appropriate remedies to protect important legal rights."). Whenthe court exercises its inherent equitable power to order expungement, it requires "either a lack ofprobable cause coupled with specific circumstances, flagrant violations ofthe Constitution, orotherunusual and extraordinary circumstances." Id. at 1230. "[A]bsent specific statutory authority" -andMs. Archer cites no such authority- "itwould be wholly inappropriate to order
... expungement in a case such as this where there has beennot only a valid arrest but a valid conviction." Doe v. Webster, 606 F.2 at 1231. Moreover, Ms. Archerhas failed "to make the necessary showing for this Court to exercise its inherent, equitable expungement power." United States v. Wilson, Criminal No. 98-0558, 2008 WL 2446134, at *1 (D.D.C. June 17, 2008). Ms. Archer's only claim is that she "will be able to fulfill higher level functions at work without the impediments ofa prior conviction." Mot. to Expunge at 2. While it is true that an arrest record canbe a "substantial barrier" to employment, Menard v. United States, 498 F.2d 1017, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 1974), that bare generalizationdoes not warrant the remedy ofexpungement ofa record ofarrest orconviction. See United States v. Wilson, 2008 WL 2446134, at *1-*2 ("[S]uch
OnJuly 10, 2012, Ms.Archerfiled two nearlyidenticalprosemotionsto expunge [Dkt. No. 17] and to seal [Dkt. No. 18] hercriminal record. On Oct. 22, 2012, theFederal Public Defenderfiled aMotion to Expunge [Dkt. No. 21] on Ms. Archer'sbehalf. 2harm is insufficient to outweigh the government's interest in maintaining a record ofher arrest and conviction, as [she] does not argue that she was improperly arrested orconvicted orthat herpresent situation is unattributable to her own actions."); In re Reid, 569 F. Supp. 2d 220, 222 (D.D.C. 2008) (holding that petitioner's inability to obtain employment is insufficient grounds for expungement). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that Ms. Archer's motions to expunge and seal her criminal record [Dkt. Nos. 17, 18 and 21] are DENIED. SO ORDERED.

3

# ~2(

# d;:;· -cL. PAULL. FRIEDMAN United States DistrictJudge