IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

vs. ) CASE NUMBER: 2:06-CR-00202-WKW

)

EUGENE L. CLECKLER )

DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR BOND PENDING APPEAL

COMES NOW the defendant, Eugene L. Cleckler, and hereby moves this

Court to remain on bond pending the determination of appeal before the Eleventh

Circuit Court of Appeals, and as grounds therefore, states as follows: 

On June 29, 2007,the defendant was sentenced to serve 33 months custody. 

He filed notice of appeal on July 5, 2007. He was ordered to begin the custody

portion of his sentence on August 14, 2007. 

Title 18, U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1) provides that if the Court finds by clear and

convincing evidence that the defendant does not pose a danger and is not a flight

risk, the Court may consider the issues which may arise on appeal. If the appeal is

not for the purpose of delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to

result in reversal, new trial or a sentence that does not include custody, the Court

may order release pending the appeal process. Title 18, U.S.C. § 3143(b)(1)(B). 

If the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact that is likely to result

in reversal, the Court should grant the appeal bond. United States v. Giancola, 754

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 112 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 1 of 4
F.2d 899 (11 Cir. 1986). A “substantial question” is one that has not been decided

th

by controlling precedent. United States v. Miller, 753 F.2d 19 (3 Cir. 1985). 

rd

The defendant believes the following issues raise substantial issues of fact

and law for appeal:

1. The Court failed to declare a mistrial based on the government’s failure to

disclose critical impeachment information regarding the two key government

witnesses, Cleveland Brown and Tanya Morris. 

2. Protected privileged attorney-client communications and attorney work

product were ordered revealed outside the scope of the crime-fraud exception.

As stated and elaborated throughout this case in open court at hearings and at

trial, and in defendant’s Motion for New Trial, an appeal in this case raises

substantial questions of law and fact that should be considered by the circuit court. 

There is no allegation that this appeal is for the purpose of delay and this defendant

has never posed a danger and is not a flight risk. 

Release or detention determinations in federal courts are governed by the Bail

Reform Act of 1984 which substantially revised the Bail Reform Act of 1966 to

increase judicial authority and discretion for release and detention determinations

and to expand appellate review. Most significantly, the Bail Reform Act of 1984

allows courts to impose conditions of release geared toward ensuring community

safety and even to deny release to those who pose a serious risk to the community. 

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 112 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 2 of 4
Cleckler does not pose a threat to the community and has shown himself trustworthy

for continued release and cooperation with all court proceedings. 

Courts encourage defendants facing relatively short sentences to seek 

release pending appeal or move for an expedited appeal because it is often difficult

to file an appeal, docket it, set a briefing schedule, hear oral argument, and draft an

opinion before a relatively short sentence has been served. See United States v.

Jackson, 32 F.3d 1101, 1104 (7th Cir. 1994). 

This request complies with all of the factors set out in Title 18, U.S.C. §

3143(b)(1)(B). There are issues in this case worthy of litigating on appeal. It is in

this Court’s discretion whether Eugene Cleckler deserves the right to have his case

heard and argued before he serves his punishment. The defendant respectfully

requests this court to stay his sentence while his appeal is heard. 

Respectfully submitted this the 11 day of July, 2007. th

 

s/ Ronald R, Brunson 

RONALD R. BRUNSON 1696

ATTORNEY FOR EUGENE L. CLECKLER

4379 Boulder Lake Circle

Birmingham, Alabama 35242

(205) 967-6242

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 112 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 3 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 11th, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing

with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification

of such filing to the following:

Andrew O. Schiff, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney

201 One Court Square

Post Office Box 197

Montgomery, AL 36101-0197

Andrew.schiff@usdoj.gov, Debbie.shaw@usdoj.gov

s/ Ronald R, Brunson 

 RONALD R. BRUNSON

Case 2:06-cr-00202-WKW-CSC Document 112 Filed 07/11/2007 Page 4 of 4