Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Hearing to 

Determine Mental Competency 

Page 1

BILLY J. WILLIAMS, OSB #901366 

United States Attorney 

District of Oregon 

STUART A. WEXLER 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Stuart.A.Wexler@usdoj.gov 

LEE F. LANGSTON 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Lee.F.Langston@usdoj.gov 

1000 SW Third Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204-2902 

Telephone: (503) 727-1000 

Attorneys for United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

v. 

WINSTON SHROUT, 

Defendant. 

3:15-cr-00438-JO 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO 

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DELAY 

SELF-SURRENDER DATE [ECF 165] 

 The United States of America, by and through Billy J. Williams, United States Attorney 

for the District of Oregon, and Stuart A. Wexler and Lee F. Langston, Trial Attorneys, Tax 

Division, hereby submits this Response to the Defendant’s motion to extend self-surrender date 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 166 Filed 11/16/18 Page 1 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Hearing 

to Determine Mental Competency 

Page 2

and set briefing schedule on motion for release pending appeal (Doc. 165) and respectfully asks 

the Court to deny the motion.1

 

I. BACKGROUND 

As this Court is well aware, the defendant, Winston Shrout, was convicted on April 21, 

2017, more than eighteen months ago, of all nineteen counts charged in the superseding 

indictment. This matter has been pending for almost three years since the defendant’s indictment 

on December 8, 2015. The criminal conduct described in the indictment and superseding 

indictment dates back more than ten years. The defendant has now filed five motions to continue 

since the date of conviction alone. Throughout all of that time, the defendant has remained at 

liberty and continued to delay the imposition of conviction, sentencing, and punishment. 

The defendant was finally sentenced in this matter on October 22, 2018 to ten years of 

imprisonment. At that hearing, defense counsel asked to have the self-surrender date set at some 

time after January 21, 2019. Tr. 10/22/18 at p. 60. That request was flatly rejected by the Court 

and a surrender date of November 26, 2018, was set by the Court and by the Bureau of Prisons. 

The defendant now comes before this Court and asks that that date be delayed until at least 

January 19, 2019, to provide defense counsel additional time to prepare a motion for bail 

pending appeal. The defendant’s motion is thus, in essence, a motion for bail pending a motion 

for bail pending appeal. 

 

1

 The motion states that Counsel has not been able to determine the government’s position with respect to the 

motion. Counsel’s determination of the government’s position was likely made more difficult by the fact that 

counsel never asked for our position. 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 166 Filed 11/16/18 Page 2 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Hearing 

to Determine Mental Competency 

Page 3

The defendant has already asked this Court to delay surrender into late January of next 

year. The Court denied that request. The defendant now renews the request absent any legal 

justification. For the reasons explained in greater detail below, it should be denied. 

II. ARGUMENT 

The burden is on the defendant to demonstrate eligibility for bail pending appeal. United 

States v. Handy, 761 F.3d 1279, 1283 (9th Cir. 1985). Under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b), a convicted 

defendant sentenced to a term of imprisonment shall be detained pending appeal unless the court 

finds: 

(1) that the defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety 

of any other person in the community, if released; 

(2) that the appeal is not for purpose of delay; 

(3) that the appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact; and 

(4) that if the substantial question is determined favorably to defendant 

on appeal, that decision is likely to result in reversal, an order for 

new trial, or a term of imprisonment shorter than the likely length of 

the appeal. 

Handy, 761 F.3d at 1281. A “substantial question” is one that is “fairly debatable.” Id. 

In the instant motion, the defendant has identified no question at all. Indeed, it identifies 

no appellate issue, substantial or otherwise, that the defendant intends to raise on appeal. 

Further, the motion provides no explanation for why preparation for the appeal could not have 

been largely completed in the eighteen months since conviction. There is no showing that the 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 166 Filed 11/16/18 Page 3 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Hearing 

to Determine Mental Competency 

Page 4

motion is not being filed solely for the purpose of delay. Finally, it lacks any justification for 

why this defendant should continue to escape the consequences for his actions. 

 Counsel has known that the defendant was convicted at trial and facing sentencing since 

April 22, 2017. He has known that probation recommended a fifteen year sentence since January 

of this year. Accordingly, it was well within counsel’s capability to begin preparing the appeal 

for all issues not directly related to sentencing in the months since the defendant was convicted. 

Counsel’s attempt to file this motion at this late hour is simply another attempt to delay 

accountability for the defendant’s criminal conduct. 

 It is quite clear that this is a case where justice delayed is indeed justice denied. As the 

government described in detail in its sentencing memorandum, general deterrence is a crucial 

factor for the Court to consider in all tax cases but particularly with respect to this defendant. 

The defendant spent over a decade selling hundreds of people on a scam – that if they said the 

magic words or filled out one of his forms, they could avoid paying taxes and the government 

and banks would give them millions of dollars. He continued to espouse these beliefs after he 

was indicted and told his followers that getting indicted was all part of his plan. After conviction 

he continued to advertise his for-profit seminars until specifically ordered by the Court to stop. 

Even after that order, the defendant told his followers that he would be back once the 

government changed. Allowing the defendant to continue to remain at liberty will send the 

wrong message to his followers that the defendant’s conduct is legal or that he has found some 

loophole that allows him to remain above the law. Doing so will substantially undermine the 

deterrent effect that this Court’s sentence was designed to achieve. 

 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 166 Filed 11/16/18 Page 4 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Hearing 

to Determine Mental Competency 

Page 5

III. CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the 

defendant’s motion to delay the self-surrender date. 

Dated: November 16, 2018 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 BILLY J. WILLIAMS 

 United States Attorney 

 _s/Lee F. Langston_______________ 

 LEE F. LANGSTON 

 STUART A. WEXLER 

 Trial Attorneys, Tax Division 

 202-353-0036 

 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 166 Filed 11/16/18 Page 5 of 6
Government’s Response to Defendant’s Motion for Hearing 

to Determine Mental Competency 

Page 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on November 16, 2018, 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 attorney(s) of 

record for the defendant. 

/s/ Lee F. Langston 

LEE F. LANGSTON 

Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 166 Filed 11/16/18 Page 6 of 6