United States v. Adrian Pena
713 F. App'x 271
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- In June 2010 a federal agency accidentally transferred $733,320 into an account controlled by Adrian Pena and his wife; Pena moved $446,215 to his attorney Stanton’s IOLTA account.
- Pena and his wife were indicted in Feb 2013 for conspiracy and related offenses; Pena later pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 287, waived most appellate rights, and was sentenced (26 months, time served) plus restitution.
- While plea negotiations delayed resolution, Pena sought disclosure about the U.S. Attorney’s Office (USAO) for the Western District of Texas having been recused from enforcing the restitution order. The district court left an initial disclosure motion pending.
- After Pena filed a direct appeal of the judgment, he filed a post-judgment (second) motion to compel disclosure about recusal memoranda and Brady material and then a motion for clarification—both filed while the first appeal was pending.
- The district court summarily denied both post-judgment motions; Pena appealed those denials. The Fifth Circuit previously dismissed Pena’s first appeal on the basis of his appeal waiver.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to consider Pena’s post-judgment motions filed while a direct appeal was pending | Pena argued the motions raised novel due-process/prosecutorial-misconduct questions tied to recusal and thus were outside the matters divesting the district court | The government (and district court implicitly) argued the pending appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction over matters involved in the appeal | Court held the pending appeal divested the district court of jurisdiction; the post-judgment motions did not fall within the limited exceptions (in aid of appeal or clerical corrections) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marrese v. Am. Acad. of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 470 U.S. 373 (Supreme Court) (appeal divests district court of control over aspects involved in the appeal)
- Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56 (Supreme Court) (a notice of appeal transfers jurisdiction to the court of appeals)
- Nicol v. Gulf Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc., 743 F.2d 298 (5th Cir.) (when an entire action is appealed, district court retains authority only to aid the appeal or correct clerical errors)