Preview:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND UNITED STATES : v. WILLIAM L. STEELWRIGHT CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 99-10-PWG : (Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm) : : MEMORANDUM Pending before me is a motion for expungement filed by defendant William L. Steelwright, who pled guilty before me in March 1999 to the possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class A misdemeanor, and received probation. Mr. Steelwright, seeking

to expunge the "entire record in this case,"1 concedes that there is no statute that expressly authorizes me to expunge his

Mr. Steelwright does not specify in his motion what he means when he requests that his "entire record" be expunged. The government has assumed that this reference includes both the arrest record, kept at the United States Army Crime Records Center in Baltimore, and his conviction record, which would be the record maintained by this Court pertaining to his trial and sentencing. I will assume, like the Government, that the motion for expungement pertains to both his arrest and conviction records. Because I conclude that Mr. Steelwright has not shown sufficient grounds warranting expungement, I need not address the government's argument that this Court lacks the authority to order executive agencies to expunge their records, including Mr. Steelwright's arrest record. (Government's August 17, 2001, letter to the Court). See United States v. Janik, 10 F.3d 470, 473 (7th Cir. 1993) (holding that federal courts have jurisdiction to expunge judicial records but not executive branch agency records pertaining to a person's indictment and conviction). 1

1

record.

Instead, he seeks to have his entire record expunged on

the basis of equitable considerations, namely that this was his first arrest and conviction, that he successfully complied with the terms of his probation, and that he is an upstanding citizen in his community. Accordingly, the issues before me are whether

I, as a magistrate judge, have jurisdiction to consider this motion for expungement, and, if so, whether the grounds In

articulated by Mr. Steelwright warrant such expungement. reviewing the cases referred to by counsel and

additional

authorities, I conclude that I do have the authority to issue the requested expungement but that the grounds expressed by Mr. Steelwright for such expungement are not legally sufficient to grant such a request. I will therefore deny the motion.

A Magistrate Judge's Authority. As a threshold matter, I must determine whether I have jurisdiction to entertain this motion. My jurisdiction in

criminal matters is set forth in two statutes, 28 U.S.C.

Download United States v. William L. Steelwright.pdf

Maryland Law