NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES,

v.

CARLOS FEDERICO-ESTEVEZ,

 Defendant.

Criminal Action No. 11-25 (SDW)

OPINION

July 13, 2021

THIS MATTER having come before this Court upon Defendant Carlos FedericoEstevez’s (“Defendant”) filing of a Letter of Expungement (“Petition”) (D.E. 44) seeking to 

expunge the record of his January 19, 2011 conviction of conspiracy to manufacture a controlled 

substance (D.E. 38), and this Court having considered the parties’ submissions, and for the reasons 

discussed below, denies Defendant’s Petition; and 

WHEREAS on January 19, 2011, Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to 

manufacture 100 or more marijuana plants. (D.E. 38.) On June 3, 2021, Defendant filed his 

Petition requesting that this Court expunge his conviction from the record. (D.E. 44.) On June 7, 

2021, the Government opposed expungement. (D.E. 45) On June 23, 2021, Defendant replied. 

(D.E. 46); and 

WHEREAS jurisdiction to expunge a defendant’s criminal record is not inherent. United 

States. v. Woodard, Crim. No. 98-0533, 2008 WL 4862454, at *1 (D.N.J. Nov. 11, 2008) (citing 

United States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 478 (3d Cir. 2001)). Moreover, ancillary jurisdiction is 

only appropriate if it serves one of two purposes: “(1) to permit disposition by a single court of 

claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually interdependent, and (2) to enable a court 

to function successfully, that is, to manage its proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate 
2

its decrees.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 379–380 (1994). 

Importantly, courts have held that “[e]xpungement of a criminal record solely on equitable 

grounds, such as to reward a defendant’s rehabilitation and commendable post-conviction conduct, 

does not serve any of those goals.” United States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000);

see also United States v. Boniella, 297 F. App’x 161, 161 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting that neither the 

Third Circuit “nor the District Court has jurisdiction to seal or expunge a conviction where there 

is no challenge to the validity of the conviction or arrest.”); United States v. Jackson, Crim. No.

96-624, 2010 WL 610622, at *1 (D.N.J. Feb. 19, 2010); and

WHEREAS the Third Circuit has adopted the view expressed in Sumner and has likewise 

determined that the purposes of ancillary jurisdiction stated in Kokkeonen do not “contemplate a 

petition for the expungement of a criminal record.” Dunegan, 251 F.3d at 479. Thus, “in the 

absence of any applicable statute enacted by Congress, or an allegation that the criminal 

proceedings were invalid or illegal, a District Court does not have the jurisdiction to expunge a 

criminal record, even when ending in an acquittal.” Id. at 479–80; and

WHEREAS Defendant, like the defendant in Sumner, rests his Petition “solely on 

equitable grounds.” (See generally D.E. 44); Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005 at 1014. Defendant does not 

cite any other case or statute that would give this Court jurisdiction to consider his Petition. (See

generally D.E. 44.) As such, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Defendant’s request. 

Although Defendant’s conduct and employment since his guilty plea are commendable, this Court 

cannot grant the requested relief. 

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s Petition (D.E. 44) is DENIED. 

An appropriate order follows.
3

__/s/ Susan D. Wigenton____ 

United States District Judge

Orig: Clerk

cc: Parties