FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 21 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 02-10662
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. CR-71-00422-DCB
v.
MEMORANDUM*
JOHN MERRILL HALL,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
David C. Bury, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2017**
Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
John Merrill Hall appeals from the district court’s orders denying his motion
for expunction of his criminal record and his motion for reconsideration. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Appellant’s request for oral
argument is denied.
Hall argues that the court should have granted his motions because
expungement is in the interests of justice. He contends that his criminal record
could disrupt his personal and business relationships, and impede him from
running for public office. We review de novo. See United States v. Hovsepian,
359 F.3d 1144, 1158 (9th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
Hall’s argument fails because a district court does not have jurisdiction to
expunge a criminal record based solely on equitable considerations. See United
States v. Sumner, 226 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). While a court may
expunge the record of an unlawful arrest or conviction, see id., Hall has not made a
showing of either here. His suggestion that there was insufficient evidence to
arrest or convict him absent the illegally intercepted calls is not supported by the
record, which he concedes is silent on that question. In any event, even if Hall
could show that his arrest or conviction were unlawful, the district court did not err
in denying his motion. Although Hall’s motion was filed 27 years after the
indictment against him was dismissed, he was unable to identify any adverse
effects from his criminal record during that period. These circumstances do not
warrant the “extraordinary remedy” of expungement. See United States v. Crowell,
374 F.3d 790, 796 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.
2 02-10662