United States v. Harris
1:17-cr-00001
D. Haw.Jan 11, 2019Background
- Sheila Harris was convicted after a 10-day trial of 17 federal counts: wire fraud (Counts 1–11), aggravated identity theft (Counts 12–13), and false statements relating to health care (Counts 14–17). She was remanded and later sentenced to 70 months imprisonment.
- Harris moved for release on bond pending sentencing and pending appeal; she withdrew the request as to release pending sentencing at the hearing, leaving only bond pending appeal at issue under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).
- The Government opposed release pending appeal, arguing Harris is a flight risk and a danger to the community and that her appeal does not raise a substantial question likely to lead to reversal, new trial, or reduced sentence.
- The Presentence Report showed Harris earned substantial illicit proceeds, retains significant assets (over $1.5M), has relocated frequently, and has family across the U.S.; the court found these factors support flight risk.
- The court found evidence of obstruction and intimidation of a witness, and noted a severe alcohol dependency in the PSR, concluding Harris poses a danger to the community.
- Harris advanced appellate arguments challenging identity-theft findings and the admissibility of several witnesses and summary evidence; the court rejected those arguments as not presenting substantial questions likely to alter the conviction or sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gov't) | Defendant's Argument (Harris) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Release pending sentencing | Not applicable (motion withdrawn as moot) | Harris sought release pending sentencing (withdrawn) | Motion for release pending sentencing withdrawn/moot |
| Release pending appeal under § 3143(b)(1)(A) — flight risk and danger | Harris is likely to flee and poses danger given assets, travel history, lack of acceptance of responsibility, witness intimidation, and substance abuse | Argues she should be released pending appeal | Denied — Harris failed to show by clear and convincing evidence she is not likely to flee or pose a danger |
| Whether appeal raises a "substantial question" under § 3143(b)(1)(B) — identity‑theft convictions | Convictions supported by overwhelming trial evidence (use of others’ IDs, falsified records); post-trial documents lack foundation | Argues use of others’ identities was inconsequential/meaningless and contests factual basis | Denied — no substantial question likely to result in reversal, new trial, or reduced sentence |
| Admissibility of testimony and summaries (Vega, Marlowe, Salazar, Reineke) | Witnesses properly handled (televideo, public‑policy exception); summaries and summary witness admissible; prior pretrial orders addressed issues | Challenges admission as improper or violative of Crawford-type rights and reliance on later Ninth Circuit authority (Carter) | Denied — court distinguished Carter, found testimony/summaries properly admitted; any error would not likely change outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Handy, 761 F.2d 1279 (9th Cir. 1985) (definition of a "substantial question" on appeal)
- United States v. Reynolds, 956 F.2d 192 (9th Cir. 1992) (economic harm may constitute a danger to the community)
- United States v. Carter, 907 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir.) (discussed and distinguished regarding unavailable-witness analysis)
- United States v. Lindsey, 680 Fed. Appx. 563 (9th Cir. 2017) (upholding bond denial where lengthy fraud demonstrated danger to community)