IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

)

)

)

)

v. ) No. 03 CR 435-1

HERMIZ KORIL,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In August 2003, Hermiz Koril pleaded guilty to one count of 

mail fraud for filing a fraudulent insurance claim based on a 

staged automobile accident. He was sentenced to one year of 

probation.

On June 15, 2015, Koril filed a motion to expunge his 

record on the grounds that (1) he has not been involved in any 

civil or criminal cases since 2003 and (2) he is a local 

businessman who would like to “clean his record.” I deny 

Koril’s motion to expunge for the reasons stated below.

I.

“[F]ederal courts are without jurisdiction to order an 

Executive Branch agency to expunge what are admittedly accurate 

records of a person's indictment and conviction.” U.S. v. 

Janik, 10 F.3d 470, 472 (7th Cir. 1993). “Janik established, 

however, that district courts do have jurisdiction to expunge 

1
records maintained by the judicial branch.” U.S. v. Flowers, 

389 F.3d 737, 739 (7th Cir. 2004) (emphasis added).1

“The test for the expungement of judicial records is a 

balancing test: ‘if the dangers of unwarranted adverse 

consequences to the individual outweigh the public interest in 

maintenance of the records, then expunction is appropriate.’” 

Id. (quoting Janik, 10 F.3d at 472). The adverse consequences 

must be “unwarranted” in the sense of being worse than the 

unfortunate, but predictable consequences of having an arrest or 

conviction record. Id. (noting that the difficulty of finding 

employment is generally not an unwarranted adverse consequence 

of having a criminal record). Ultimately, the “unwarranted 

adverse consequences must be uniquely significant in order to 

outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining accurate and 

undoctored [court] records.” Id. (emphasis added). 

“[T]he balance very rarely tips in favor of expungement.” 

Flowers, 389 F.3d at 740 (holding that district court abused its 

discretion in expunging court records of woman who pleaded 

guilty to crime, described her post-conviction accomplishments, 

and expressed concern that her criminal records would impede her 

1 Flowers, the Seventh Circuit’s most recent expungement case, 

has been called into question by other circuits because it 

failed to address Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 

U.S. 375, 379-80 (1994), which identified only two permissible 

grounds for exercising ancillary jurisdiction, neither of which 

seems to encompass expungement motions. See U.S. v. Lucido, 612 

F.3d 871, 876 (6th Cir. 2010).

2

 
job search); see e.g., Janik 10 F.3d at 472-73 (affirming denial 

of request to expunge court records even where defendant’s 

conviction had been overturned on appeal and he was struggling 

to find employment because of his record); see also Scruggs v. 

U.S., 929 F.2d 305, 307 (7th Cir. 1991) (affirming denial of 

request to expunge arrest records even though defendant had been 

found not guilty).

II.

In this case, Koril has not identified any unwarranted 

adverse consequences that might outweigh the strong public 

interest in maintaining full and complete court records. 

Flowers shows that Koril’s post-conviction accomplishments--

i.e., staying out of any civil or criminal suits since 2003--are 

insufficient to warrant expungement. As for Koril’s concern 

that his criminal record will harm his local business, Flowers

and Janik rejected expungement requests based on the adverse 

economic consequences that any person with an arrest or 

conviction record is likely to suffer. Those consequences are 

“unfortunate,” but not “unwarranted.” Flowers, 389 F.3d at 739-

40. Finally, Koril is in a far less sympathetic position than 

the defendants in Janik (where the underlying conviction had 

been overturned on appeal) and Scruggs (where a jury had 

returned a not guilty verdict). Both of those defendants were 

3
unable to expunge their records; it follows that an admittedly 

guilty defendant like Koril is not entitled to expungement.

III.

Koril’s motion for expungement is DENIED for the reasons 

stated above.

 ENTER ORDER:

 

_____________________________

 Elaine E. Bucklo

United States District Judge

Dated: July 17, 2015

4