ADAMS v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OPINION filed. Signed by Judge Anne E. Thompson on 2/9/2018. (mps)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
HONORABLE ANNE E. THOMPSON
No. '16-6780 (AET)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
FEB 0 9 2018
THOMPSON, District Judge:
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner V ernina Adams' motion for release
pending sentencing (ECF No. 18) and motion for prompt ruling (ECF-No. 23). 1 Respondent
-United States has not opposed either motion. For the reasons stated herein, the moti<;m for release
is denied and the motion for a prompt ruling is dismissed as moot.
Petitioner pied guilty to a one-count Information charging her with conspiracy to commit
bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349, on July 31, 2013. She was sentenced to 40 months imprisonment
with a 5 year period of supervised release to run concurrently with two prior federal convictions.
United States v. Adams, 13-ct-0501 (D.N.J. May 9, 2016). See also United States v. _Adams, 5:15-
0072 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 15, 2015); United States v. Adams, No. 12-584 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2013).
labels her motion a supplement to a motion for release purportedly filed with the
Court on June 27, 2017. The docket does not reflect any motion for release on bond prior to the
instant motion, and the only correspondence from Petitioner dated June 27, 2017 was a letter requesting a ruling on the § 2255 motion itself. (ECF No. 17).
She did not file a direct appeal. On October 6, 2016, she filed a motion to vacate, correct, or set
aside her sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (ECF No. 1). The Court originally
administratively terminated the motion as it was not on the proper form, (ECF No. 3), and
Petitioner submitted an amended motion on January 3, 2017, (ECF No. 7). The Court advised
Petitioner of her rights and the consequences of filing a§ 2255 motion pursuant to United States
v. Miller, 197 F .3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), and directed Petitioner to inform the Court whether she
wanted to proceed with the amended motion as filed or to submit a second amended motion
subject to the one-year statute of limitations. (ECF No. 9). Petitioner elected to file a second·
amended motion on February 6, 2017. (ECF No. 11).
The Court ordered Respondent United States to answer the petition. (ECF No. 12). As
Respondent did not answer the petition within the time set by the Court, the Court issued an
order to show cause on May 8, 2017. (ECF No. 13). Respondent answered the order the same
day and requested an extension of time to file an answer. (ECF No. 14). The Court granted that
extension request as well as a second extension of time request made on July 18, 2017. (ECF
Nos. 16 & 19). Respondent filed its answer on July 28, 2017. (ECF No. 20). 2
On July 10, 2017, Petitioner filed the instant motion for release pending sentencing. (ECF
No. 18). She filed a motion for a prompt ruling on January 5, 2018. (ECF No. 23). Respondent
did not reply to either motion.
Respondent's answer did not include the transcripts of the plea and sentencing hearings. These
transcripts have not been filed on the docket nor served on Petitioner as of the date of this
Opinion and Order. The Court expects Respondent to promptly secure, file, and serve the
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
District courts have the discretion to order bail on bond pending the outcome of§ 2255
proceedings. See United States v. Smith, 835 F.2d 1048, 1050 (3d Cir. 1987). "[B]ail pending
disposition of habeas corpus review is available 'only when the petitioner has raised substantial
constitutional claims upon which [s]he has a high probability of success ... or exceptional
circumstances exist which make a grant of bail necessary to make the habeas remedy effective."'
United States v. Weicksel, 517 F. App'x 67, 68 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Landano v.
Rafferty, 970 F.2d 1230, 1239 (3d Cir. 1992) (omission in original)). See also United States v.
Knight, No~ 1:08-CR-141-06, 2017 WL 75575, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2017) .
. IV. ANALYSIS
Petitioner argues she should be released on bail pending this Court's decision in her§
2255 proceedings because she has a high probability of success on the merits because her
offenses were part of the same course of conduct, "possession of a fraudulent business is a
continuous offense which ceases only when the possession stops," and both of her offenses were
based on the same evidence. Motion at 1-3. She states she has already served 39 months and 7
days in custody at the time of the filing of her motion and that she will likely receive "a
retroactive concurrency to both relevant conduct offenses" and a sentence of time served if the
Court resentences her. Motion at 3-4. She argues these are extraordinary circumstances
warranting release on bond pending this Court's decision. Id.
The Third Circuit has "previously observed that ' [v ]ery few cases have presented
extraordinary circumstances, and those that have seem to be limited to situations involving poor
health or the impending completion of the prisoner's sentence."' In re Souels, 688 F. App'x 134,
135 (3d Cir. 2017) (quoting Landano, 970 F.2d at 1239 (alteration in original)). See also Lucas v.
Hadden, 790 F.2d 365, 367 (3d Cir. 1986) ("[A] preliminary grant of bail is an exceptional form
of relief in a habeas corpus proceeding."). See Boyer v. City of Orlando, 402 F.2d 966 (5th Cir.
1968) (granting bail to prisoner sentenced to 120 days in prison); Johnston v. Marsh, 227 F.2d
528, 529 (3d Cir. 1955) (permitting state prisoner, "an advanced diabetic [who] was, under
conditions of confinement, rapidly progressing toward total blindness[,]" to be released to a
hospital for immediate treatment). Petitioner does not argue she is in poor health and in need of
immediate treatment, nor is she scheduled for imminent release. According to the Bureau of
Prison's Inmate Locator, she is scheduled for release on January 26, 2019. See BOP Inmate
Locator, available at https://www.bop.gov/inmateloc/ (last visited Jan. 30, 2018). Furt\lermore,
she has a 5 year period of supervised release to serve at the conclusion of her incarceration. See
Burkey v. Marberry, 556 F.3d 142, 147-48 (3d Cir. 2009) (noting§ 2255 petition was not moot
after petitioner's release from prison because he still had to serve a period of supervised release);
United States v. Jackson, 523 F .3d 234, 242 (3d Cir. 2008). Petitioner has therefore failed to
meet the Third Circuit's test for extraordinary circumstances as her release date is not imminent
and she is not in poor health such that urgent treatment is required. "Consequently, this is not a
case where the timing of the release date would render the habeas remedy ineffective if the
petitioner were not granted bail." Souels, 688 F. App'x at 135 (citing Landano, 970 F.2d at
As there are no extraordinary circumstances warranting bail, Petitioner's motion is
denied. See Lucas v. Hadden, 790 F.2d 365, 367 (3d Cir. 1986) (holding that "absent a showing
of extraordinary circumstances, [petitioner] was improperly admitted to bail."). Her motion for a
decision is dismissed as moot.
For the reasons stated above, Petitioner's motion for release on bond is denied. Her
motion for a decision is dismissed as moot.
An accompanying Order will be entered.
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?