Newsletter of the Federal Courts Vol. 43 Number 3 March 2011

Filings in the Judiciary Continued to Grow in 2010 ........................................pg. 3

Judge Saris to Head USSC .....................pg. 6

Digital Video Recording Pilot Project Seeks Courts ...............................pg. 7

INSIDE

Ensuring Safety and Security

Ensuring the safety and security of the Judiciary is a

24/7 job for the U.S. Marshals Service. And USMS Director Stacia Hylton has years of experience that she says will help the Marshals Service address concerns faster and more comprehensively. She tells us how in her Interview beginning on page 10.

INtErvIEw

Funding Uncertain for FY 2011

With no fiscal year 2011 appropriations bills enacted, Congress

must pass continuing resolutions to carry on normal operations or the government shuts down. A shutdown of the federal government was averted on March 4, and again on March 18, when Congress passed short-term spending bills to keep the government running. As the Third Branch went to press in mid-March, Congress had passed an extension until April 8th of the continuing resolution.

Continued on page 6

The Executive Committee, the senior executive arm of the Judicial Conference, met prior to the March meeting in Washington, DC. The Committee members are, (seated from left to right), Administrative Office Director James C. Duff (ex-officio), Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina (11th Cir.), Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance (E.D. La.), Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. (4th Cir.), (standing left to right) Judge Rodney W. Sippel (E.D. Mo.), Judge Robin J. Cauthron (W.D. Okla.), Chief Judge Harvey Bartle III (E.D. Pa.), and Chief Judge David B. Sentelle (D.C. Cir.).

The Executive Committee

Judicial Leaders Hear Concerns Over Funding

Continued on page 2

At its March meeting, the Judicial Conference received a report on the potentially dire consequences the

federal Judiciary may face if a Fiscal Year 2011 funding measure is not soon adopted.

In her report to the Judicial Conference, Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, chair of the Budget Committee, addressed four specific areas of immediate concern: ■■■ The possibility of a lapse in appropriations and its impact on the courts;

■■■ The uncertainty over the final funding level for the courts and the possibility of sudden and severe disruptions of service;

■■■ That the Judicial Branch’s views will not be represented when the other two branches discuss and negotiate the budget;

■■■ And the potential for having to defer payments to lawyers appointed to represent indigent defendants under the Criminal Justice Act.The budgetary uncertainty comes at a time

when nearly all facets of court workload are

The Third Branch ■ March 20112

Judicial Leaders Hear Concerns Over Fundingcontinued from page 1

growing, particularly bankruptcy and probation and pretrial services. Gibbons credited the court system’s on-going commitment to cost containment for slowing the growth in the Judiciary budget requirements. Nevertheless, she expressed concern that the Judiciary could face several years of difficult

budgets that may result in reductions in services.

In other matters, the Conference:■■■ Encouraged all circuit judicial councils to consider establishing “judicial wellness” committees to create programs, policies and practices that provide a supportive environment for the maintenance and restoration of health. Such committees also would provide information to judges on judicial retirement issues, including

disability retirement. Similar initia-tives have been undertaken by other private, not-for-profit, and public sector organizations.■■■ Adopted a new policy governing the management of sex offenders, calling for, among other things, specialized training for probation and pretrial services officers who work with sex offenders and sex offense victims, and for reduced caseloads for such officers.

Seated: (LtoR) Chief Judge Sandra L. Lynch (1st Cir.); Chief Judge Dennis Jacobs (2nd Cir.); Chief Judge Theodore A. McKee (3rd Cir.); Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr., (4th Cir.); Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.; Chief Judge Edith Hollan Jones (5th Cir.); Chief Judge Alice M. Batchelder (6th Cir.); Chief Judge Frank H. Easterbrook (7th Cir.); Chief Judge William Jay Riley (8th Cir.).

Standing, Second Row: (LtoR) Chief Judge Mark Wolf, (D. Mass.); Judge Carol Bagley Amon (E. D. NY); Chief Judge Harvey Bartle III (E.D. Penn.); Chief Judge David Bryan Sentelle (D.C. Cir.); Chief Judge Randall R. Rader (Fed Cir.); Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, (9th Cir.); Chief Judge Mary Beck Briscoe (10th Cir.); Chief Judge Joel F. Dubina (11th Cir.); Judge James P. Jones (W.D. Va.); and Chief Judge Sarah S. Vance (E.D. La.).

Standing, Third Row: (LtoR) Judge Thomas A. Varlan (E.D. Tenn.); Chief Judge Richard L. Young (S.D. Ind.); Chief Judge Robert S. Lasnik (W.D. Wash.); Judge Robin J. Cauthron (W.D. Okla.); Judge Rodney W. Sippel (E.D. Mo.); Judge Myron H. Thompson (M.D. Ala.); Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth (D. DC); Chief Judge Donald C. Pogue (Int’l Trade.); and James C. Duff, Dir, AOUSC.

Judicial Conference of the United States, March 15, 2011

The Third Branch ■ March 2011 3

Filings in the Federal Judiciary Continued to Grow in Fiscal Year 2010

In fiscal year 2010, the federal district courts saw continued growth in civil, criminal, and bankruptcy filings, as

well as in the number of pretrial services cases and persons under supervision. This continues a decade-long trend of growth in these filings. Only the total number of appeals filed declined, pulled down by slight drops in criminal and administrative agency appeals. The number of civil appeals filed remained relatively unchanged.

Complete statistics for FY 2010, which ran from October 1, 2009, to September 30, 2010, are now available in Judicial Business of the United States Courts, at www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/ JudicialBusiness.aspx.

U.S. Courts of AppealsFilings in the regional courts of appeals dropped 3 percent to 55,992 in FY 2010, due to a 7 percent drop in criminal appeals to 12,797 and a 9 percent drop in administrative agency appeals to 7,813. Bankruptcy appeals declined 15 percent to 678, the smallest number filed since 1982. Civil appeals remained stable, dropping by just 27

appeals to 30,940. Original proceedings in the courts of appeals increased 2 percent to 3,764.

Prisoner petitions fell 3 percent to 15,789. Appeals involving pro se litigants declined 2 percent to 27,209.

U.S. District CourtsFilings of civil and criminal cases in the U.S. district courts grew 2 percent to 361,323.

Civil Filings

Civil filings rose 2 percent to 282,895, or 417 civil filings per authorized judgeship in 2010. There were 408 civil filings per authorized judgeship in 2009.

Filings of diversity of citizenship cases (i.e. cases between citizens of different states) grew 4 percent to an all-time high of 101,202.

Federal question cases (i.e. actions under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States in which the United States is not a party) rose 2 percent to 138,655. The growth in these filings occurred chiefly as a result of a 31 percent jump in consumer credit filings (up by 1,922 cases), a combined 8 percent

increase in civil rights employment and Americans with Disabilities Act cases (up by 1,130 cases), a 13 percent increase in filings under the Fair Labor Standards Act (up by 759 cases), a 33 percent rise in foreclosure cases (up by 499 cases), a 6 percent rise in protected property rights actions (up by 563 cases), and a 15 percent increase in bankruptcy appeals (up 288 cases).

Immigration cases, which climbed 9 percent to 28,046, constituted 36 percent of all

criminal cases filed, compared to 34 percent in 2009.

Criminal Filings

Filings of criminal cases (including transfers) increased 2 percent to 78,428. The number of criminal defendants (including transfers) also rose 2 percent to 100,366, surpassing the previous record of 97,982 set in 2009. Proceedings were concluded against 98,311 defendants, 91 percent of whom were convicted, with 89 percent pleading guilty.

Immigration cases, which climbed 9 percent to 28,046, constituted 36 percent of all criminal cases filed, compared to 34 percent in 2009. The majority of immigration filings involved improper reentry of aliens, and 73 percent of all immigration cases were filed in the District of Arizona, the Southern District of California, the District of New Mexico, and the Southern and Western Districts of Texas.

Filings addressing fraud grew 12 percent to 9,371 for cases, and rose 13 percent to 12,639 for the number of defendants in these cases.

Twenty percent of all criminal cases were drug offenses, compared to 22 percent in 2009. Cases involving drug offenses decreased 5 percent to 15,785,

Appeals Filed, by Type

201020092008200720060

4,000

8,000

12,000

16,000

20,000

■ Criminal ■ Prisoner Petitions ■ Administrative Agency ■ Original Proceedings ■ All Other

12-Month Periods Ending September 30

Continued on page 4

The Third Branch ■ March 20114

petitions grew 14 percent while business petitions fell 1 percent.

Bankruptcy filings rose in 73 of the 90 bankruptcy courts, remained steady in one court (the Western District of Pennsylvania), and fell in 16 courts. The Eastern and Western Districts of Tennessee reported reduc-tions of 6 percent in bankruptcy filings, the sharpest declines in total filings nationwide. Filings in all four California districts grew by more than 20 percent.

The largest percentage increases in the nation were in the Central District of California and the Southern District of Florida, both of which had 42 percent more filings in FY 2010. Filings rose 36 percent in the District of Arizona. Of the 14 courts where filings rose by more than 20 percent, 11 were west of the Mississippi River.

Pretrial Services and Post-Conviction Supervision

Pretrial Services

The number of cases opened in the pretrial services system, including pretrial diversion cases, grew nearly 6 percent to 111,507 cases from 105,294 cases in FY 2009. Forty percent of the cases opened involved immigration as a major offense. Cases involving property offenses represented 14 percent of the cases opened, up from 13 percent in FY 2009. There was a two percent drop in cases involving firearms offenses and in cases in which the major offense charged involved drugs.

In FY 2010, pretrial services officers prepared 107,256 pretrial services reports, an increase of more than 6 percent over 2009. A total of 32,500 defendants were released with specified conditions such as pretrial services supervision or location monitoring. Pretrial supervision was imposed on 89 percent of the defen-dants released. Substance abuse

Civil Cases Filed, by Nature of Suit

0

15,000

30,000

45,000

60,000

75,000

90,000

20102009200820072006

■ Personal Injury ■ Prisoner Petitions ■ Contract ■ Protected Property Rights ■ Consumer Credit

12-Month Periods Ending September 30

Criminal Cases Filed, by Nature of Offense

201020092008200720060

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

12-Month Periods Ending September 30

■ Drugs ■ Firearms ■ Fraud ■ Immigration ■ Other

Filings in the Federal Judiciary Continued to Grow in Fiscal Year 2010continued from page 3

and defendants in those cases declined 2 percent to 29,410. Marijuana cases dropped 10 percent overall, but filings related to possession of marijuana increased, with cases climbing 26 percent to 1,248 and the number of defendants rising 28 percent to 1,305. Drug cases involving non-marijuana offenses declined 3 percent to 10,817, and defendants in those cases fell 2 percent to 21,918.

Firearms and explosives cases, which account for 9 percent of total criminal case filings, declined 7 percent to 7,248. Defendants in those cases dropped 6 percent to 8,376.

U.S. Bankruptcy CourtsIn fiscal year 2010, the U.S. bankruptcy courts received 1,596,355 bankruptcy petitions, a 14 percent increase over the number received in FY 2009. This year’s total was the highest since FY 2005, the last full year before the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 took effect. Nonbusiness

The Third Branch ■ March 2011 5

treatment and testing were ordered for 50 percent of the defendants.

Post-Conviction Supervision

The number of persons under post-conviction supervision on September 30, 2010, was 127,324, an increase of 2.5 percent over the 124,183 persons under supervision one year earlier. The 102,521 persons released from correctional institutions who were serving terms of supervised release on September 30, 2010, accounted for 81 percent of all persons under supervision. Cases involving probation imposed by district and magistrate judges fell less than 1 percent to 22,619 cases, accounting for 18 percent of all persons under post-conviction super-vision. Parole cases dropped more than 5 percent to 2,058 cases.

Of the persons under post-conviction supervision at the end of the fiscal year, more than 47 percent had been convicted of drug offenses, 22 percent of property offenses, and nearly 12 percent of firearms offenses.

Judicial Caseload Indicators 12-Month Periods Ending September 30 % Change % ChangeJudicial Caseload 2001 2006 2009 2010 Since 2001 Since 2006

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Cases Filed 57,464 66,618 57,740 55,992 -2.6 -16.0

U.S. District Courts

Civil Cases Filed 250,907 259,541 276,397 282,895 12.7 9.0

Criminal (Includes Transfers) Cases Filed 62,708 66,860 76,655 78,428 25.1 17.3

Defendants Filed 83,252 88,216 97,982 100,366 20.6 13.8

U.S. Bankruptcy Courts

Cases Filed 1,437,354 1,112,542 1,402,816 1,596,355 11.1 43.5

Post-Conviction Supervision

Persons Under Supervision 104,715 114,002 124,183 127,324 21.6 11.7

Pretrial Services Total Cases Activated 88,049 96,479 105,294 111,507 26.6 15.6

Total Released on Supervision 35,082 33,608 29,615 29,902 -14.8 -11.0

Post-Conviction Supervision as of September 30

Probation

Parole

Term of Supervised Release

■ Term of Supervised Release■ Parole■ Probation

18%

2%

80%

2006

Post-Conviction Supervision as of September 30

Probation

Parole

Term of Supervised Release

■ Term of Supervised Release■ Parole■ Probation

22%

3%

75%

2010

The Third Branch ■ March 20116

Saris to Head USSC

U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris (D. Mass.) has been confirmed by Congress as the new chair of the

U.S. Sentencing Commission. She succeeds Judge William K. Sessions III (D. Vt.).

“The Commission plays a critical role in the development and implementation of national

sentencing policy, and I look forward to working on a guide-

lines system that is reflective of the principles of sentencing

established by Congress.”

“I am greatly honored to have been nominated by our President and confirmed by the Senate to serve as chair of the country’s expert body on federal sentencing,” Saris said in a statement. “The Commission plays a critical role in

the development and implementation of national sentencing policy, and I look forward to working on a guidelines system that is reflective of the principles of sentencing established by Congress.”

Commissioner terms run for six years and a commissioner may serve no more than two full terms.

Saris became a U.S. district court judge in 1994. Previously, she had served as an associate justice for the Massachusetts Superior Court from 1989 to 1993, and as a U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Massachusetts from 1986 to 1989. From 1982 to 1986, she was an attorney in the

Civil Division of the Department of Justice, and she held the position of Chief of the Civil Division, Office of the United States Attorney for Massachusetts from 1984 to 1986. From 1970 until 1981, Saris served as staff counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission is composed of seven voting members and two non-voting ex officio members. The voting members of the Commission are Vice Chair William B. Carr, Jr. of Pennsyl-vania, Vice Chair Ketanji B. Jackson of Maryland, Chief Judge Ricardo H. Hinojosa (S. D. Tex.), Dabney Friedrich of Maryland, and Judge Beryl A. Howell (D. D.C). There is one vacancy. The two non-voting Commission members are Isaac Fulwood, Jr., chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission, and Jonathan J. Wroblewski, representing the Office of the Attorney General, Department of Justice.

No more than four commissioners may be members of the same political party, and at least three must be federal judges.

Judge Patti B. Saris (D. Mass.)

Funding Uncertain for FY 2011continued from page 1

Contingency PlanningIf Congress is unable to agree on the continued funding of government before April 8th, the Judiciary is prepared to use non-appropriated fees to keep the courts running for up to two weeks.

Once that funding is exhausted, however, the federal court system faces serious disruptions. Following their own contingency plans, federal courts would limit operation to essential activities.

For the federal courts, this would mean limiting activities to those functions necessary and essential to continue the resolution of cases. All other personnel services not related to performance of Article III functions would be suspended.

The jury system would operate as necessary, although payments to jurors would be deferred. Attorneys and essential support staff in federal defender offices and court-appointed counsel would continue to provide defense services as needed, but again, payments would be deferred. Courts would determine the number of probation office staff needed to maintain service to the courts and the safety of the community.

Full-Year Continuing AppropriationsThe House passed H.R. 1, the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act of 2011, providing funding for the remainder of the fiscal year. The Senate has yet to act on the bill. H.R. 1 includes deep cuts in federal spending. The Judiciary already has reduced its FY 2011 request from $7.16 billion to

$6.9 billion. This level supports only current services, however, eliminating any funding to address increases in workload.

The funding cuts called for in H.R. 1, coming so late in the fiscal year, could result in the loss of a significant number of on-board court staff. The resulting impact on the courts could compromise access to justice with courts and jeopardize safety in the community.

“We are preparing for a worst-case scenario,” said Director James Duff in a memo to the courts while emphasizing the seriousness of funding cuts to the courts, “but we also are taking all steps necessary to minimize adverse personnel actions.”

In 2004, reductions in court staffing resulted in curtailed hours of operation, reduced services to the public, and decreased oversight of offenders.

The Third Branch ■ March 2011 7

Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Chairs Named

The Senate Judiciary Committee has approved its subcommittees and their jurisdictions. The two

subcommittees whose jurisdictions include the federal courts or many of the issues of interest to the Judiciary are the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, and the Crime and Terrorism Subcommittee. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) chairs the Administrative Oversight and the Courts Subcommittee with ranking minority member Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) chairs the Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism, with ranking minority member Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL)

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)

Digital Video Recording Pilot Project Seeks Courts

The federal Judiciary’s pilot to evaluate the effect of cameras in courtrooms is looking for

volunteers—district courts that include judges who support and oppose cameras in court—to take part in the three-year experiment.

“We especially want to ensure that judges who hold a range of views on

the recording of courtroom proceedings will participate.”

—Judge Julie A. Robinson

The pilot to study the use of digital video recording was authorized in September 2010 by the Judicial Conference. The recording of district courtroom proceedings is limited to civil cases and will be recorded

by participating courts. The recordings will be made publicly available on www.uscourts.gov and on local court websites at the court's discretion.

“We encourage districts to partic-ipate in the pilot project,” said Judge Julie A. Robinson (D. Kan.), chair of the Conference Committee on Court Admin-istration and Case Management (CACM). The Conference has given the CACM Committee responsibility for imple-menting the Digital Video Recording Pilot Project. “We especially want to ensure that judges who hold a range of views on the recording of courtroom proceedings will participate. It is important to the validity of this pilot to include the skeptical as well as the supportive," said Robinson.

The Federal Judicial Center (FJC), the research arm of the federal Judiciary, in collaboration with CACM, will select the project districts.

Since the Judicial Conference action, CACM has been working with the Admin-istrative Office and the FJC on all aspects

Continued on page 9

Courts in the pilot project will use cameras, like this one, that are compact and unobtrusive.

The Third Branch ■ March 20118

Published monthly by theAdministrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Office of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

(202) 502-2600

Visit our Internet site at www.uscourts.gov

DIRECTORJames C. Duff

EDITOR-IN-CHIEFDavid A. Sellers

MANAGING EDITORKaren E. Redmond

PRODUCTIONOmniStudio, Inc.

CONTRIBUTORDick Carelli, AO

Please direct all inquiries and address changes to The Third Branch at the above address or to

Karen_Redmond@ao.uscourts.gov.

Up-to-date information on judicial vacancies is available at

http://www.uscourts.gov/JudgesAndJudgeships/JudicialVacancies.aspx

March Judicial Milestones

JUDICIAL BOXSCOrE

Appointed: James E. Graves, Jr., as a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, February 17.

Appointed: Scott M. Matheson, Jr., as a U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, December 30.

Appointed: Marco A. Hernandez, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, February 9.

Appointed: Paul Kinloch Holmes, III, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, February 14.

Appointed: Beryl A. Howell, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, January 21.

Appointed: William Joseph Martinez, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, February 10.

Appointed: Benita Y. Pearson, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, December 29.

Appointed: Diana Saldana, as a U.S. District Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, February 11.

Appointed: Scott C. Clarkson, as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, January 20.

Appointed: Mark S. Wallace, as a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, January 20.

Appointed: Jacquelyn D. Austin, as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, February 7.

Appointed: Nannette A. Baker, as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, February 3.

Appointed: Scott W. Skavdahl, as a U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, February 1.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, January 30.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, February 1.

Senior Status: U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, February 1.

Elevated: U.S. District Judge Rosanna Malouf Peterson, to Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, succeeding Judge Lenny R. Suko, January 27.

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregory F. Kishel, to Chief Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota, succeeding Judge Nancy C. Dreher, January 26.

As of March 1, 2011

Courts of Appeals

Vacancies .................................16 Nominees ................................8

District Courts

Vacancies .................................83 Nominees ................................38

Courts with“Judicial Emergencies” ........44

Continued on page 9

The Third Branch ■ March 2011 9

March Judicial Milestones continued from page 8

of the implementation. That includes the selection process for the participating courts, the guidelines for the conduct of the project, the technical and audio-visual equipment requirements of the pilot, and the conduct of the study.

Districts volunteering for the pilot must follow certain guidelines. The pilot is limited to civil proceedings in which the parties have consented to recording. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure bar cameras from federal court in criminal proceedings.

Only courts participating in the pilot program may record court proceedings for the purpose of public release. In addition, participating courts must amend their local rules, providing adequate public notice and opportunity to comment.

Under the pilot, the presiding judge will select cases for video recording, although parties to a case or the media also may request video recording of the proceedings. No proceedings may be recorded without the approval of the presiding judge and parties must consent to the recording of each proceeding in a case. The pilot recordings will not be simulcast, but will be made available as soon as possible. The presiding judge can choose to stop a recording if it is necessary, for example, to protect the rights of the parties and witnesses and the dignity of the court, or choose not to post the video for public view. Coverage of the prospective jury during voir dire is prohibited, as is coverage of jurors or alternate jurors.

Funding for the pilot is limited because of the Judiciary ’s constrained budget; participating courts will be encouraged to use existing videocon-ference equipment.

Digital Video Recording Pilot Project Seeks Courtscontinued from page 7

Elevated: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Marci Beth McIvor, to Chief Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, succeeding U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Phillip Shefferly, January 1.

Retired: U.S. District Judge Vaughn R. Walker, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, February 28.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge J. Vincent Aug, Jr., U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, February 28.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Nancy C. Dreher, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota, January 25.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Timothy J. Mahoney, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nebraska, January 31.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Geraldine Mund, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, February 9.

Retired: U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Gregg W. Zive, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, December 31.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate Judge William Beaman, U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming, January 31.

Retired: U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert S. Carr, U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, February 4.

This month, Milestones exceeded the available space. Please visit the Third Branch online at www.uscourts.gov/news/TheThirdBranch.aspx to read the complete Milestones for March.

New on uscourts.govFederal judges tell how they overcame obstacles to serve on the bench—part of the new

Pathways to the Bench video series. Visit uscourts.gov/outreach to watch.

The Third Branch ■ March 201110

INtErvIEw

Ensuring the Safety and Security of the JudiciaryAn Interview with the Director of the U.S. Marshals Service

Stacia A. Hylton was sworn in as the 10th Director of the U.S. Marshals Service on December 31, 2010.

Q: what are the U.S. Marshals Service’s responsibilities con-cerning the federal Judiciary?

A: We ensure the safety and security of the judicial proceedings that take place in federal courts by providing protection for federal judges, U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys, personnel, jurors, the visiting public and prisoners. This is accomplished through personal protection and physical security of facilities housing court opera-tions and personnel. This includes, but is not limited to, more than 2,200 judges and other court officials at over 440 facil-ities throughout the country.

We achieve this through two appropri-ations: The direct appropriation provided to the Marshals Service by Congress to provide for the safety and security of the judicial proceedings; and through the court security appropriation obtained by the Judiciary from Congress and then transferred to the Marshals to administer the court security officer and physical security systems and equipment programs for court space.

Q: As Director, what are your goals for the USMS?

A: The responsibilities of the Marshals Service have expanded outside the original scope of securing judicial proceedings and personal security. Some of this expansion has been a direct result of significant and tragic events that have triggered the need for the government to react with increased judicial security

programs, such as facility security, off-site security, and threat investigations. With the support of the federal courts, the Marshals Service has taken great strides in addressing these new responsibilities, but there is still much work to be done.

Additionally, over the past 10 years there have been other changes that play into establishing our priorities, such as significant growth in caseloads, especially in the border districts. This creates challenges for space and resources at both the courts and the USMS. These factors, coupled with the Marshals having no funding for infrastructure renovations is causing difficulties with processing and moving prisoners effec-tively to courts nationwide.

Finally, the significant increases in technological capabilities, as well as the increased threats posed by terrorism trials and other high-visibility cases, have an impact on establishing priorities.

Q: You have a 30 year career in federal law enforcement, including 24 years with the U.S. Marshals Service. How does that experience shape your role and priorities as USMS Director?

A: Having worked in the Marshals at many levels, and then served as the Attorney General’s Federal Detention Trustee during the past Administration, enables me to identify and drive to solutions quickly. I have worked in each Marshals area of responsibility: Judicial Security, Witness Security, Prisoner Opera-tions, Fugitives and Asset Forfeiture, and at many different levels including

deputy, management, in the field, and at headquarters.

Because I served in four judicial districts, from Deputy to Chief Deputy, I was able to see first hand not only the commonalities, but also the differ-ences that can exist between the districts. Understanding field operations provides a great baseline for identifying issues and determining which strategies will result in improvements.

Additionally, during my tenure with the Marshals, I served as the Chief of Court Security Programs for a number of years. This position provided me the oppor-tunity to work at the national level, giving me experience in working with several committees of the Judicial Conference, but primarily with the Space and Security Committee, now the Judicial Security Committee. My responsibilities as chief included administering the Court Security Officers Program and physical security of judicial space. Also during this time, several high-visibility trials and incidents occurred, including the first World Trade Center trials, the Oklahoma City bombing and subsequent McVeigh trial.

These experiences enable me to respond to and address concerns quickly and more comprehensively. My experience throughout the years has been that, while Washington is often needed to

USMS Director Stacia A. Hylton

The Third Branch ■ March 2011 11

See Interview on page 12

provide support, often the best problem-solving happens “on the ground,” at the district level.

Q: As you know, along the United States southwestern border, the transportation and deten-tion of offenders is a logistical challenge with U.S. Marshals often driving long distances to deliver prisoners for court appearances. As a former fed-eral detention trustee do you have any insights on how to improve this situation?

A: When I served as the former Federal Detention Trustee, I had the oppor-tunity to work with the Judicial Ad Hoc Detention Working Group and Judge Henry Hudson. The work of this group was accomplished in three phases: assessing the housing situation using the jail utilization report on the percentage of prisoners needed for court and the average distance from the court location; surveying the districts to get further input to combine with the data collected; and developing a website where the information and assessment could be published along with information that would help districts work through detention issues, which is currently managed by the OFDT. A majority of concerns were tied to the lack of commu-nication and information at the district level about where prisoners were being held. There was a real need for problem-solving on how there could be better access to prisoners for pretrial services, public defenders, and U.S. attorneys.

Many districts have experienced critical detention space issues at one time or another. Part of the Trustee’s job is to monitor the court appearance status of each prisoner to determine the best housing option. For example, if a prisoner’s court case is active, we would do our

best to house him or her nearby. On the other hand, if a significant delay in a court case is expected, or if a prisoner has been sentenced but is awaiting designation to a corrections facility, we would move them further away to free-up bed space near the court. Recently, a new, large, private facility has opened in Nevada, providing relief to the District of Arizona and the Southern District of California. In addition, a large number of beds have become available in California, also helping the situation.

The Prisoner Operations Division and Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System continue to develop new transpor-tation routes and other ways to improve the situation along the southwest border.

Q: Federal judges receive hun-dreds of threats and inappro-priate communications each year. How does the USMS treat these threats? what could judges be doing to assist the USMS in dealing with these threats and inappropriate communications?

A: The Marshals Service takes all threats and inappropriate communications very seriously. Each inappropriate communi-cation is analyzed individually, assessed, and investigated to determine the level of risk. Once this is done, the appropriate action is taken to protect and/or mitigate any risk to the judge. The Marshals Service opened the Office of Protective Intelli-gence—Threat Management Center (TMC) in September 2007 to serve as the “intake” function and coordination center for these cases. The TMC provides centralized guidance, oversight, and recommenda-tions using what we refer to as a behavior-based approach for investigators who conduct protective investigations in the field. The TMC is staffed by Marshals criminal investigators, intelligence research specialists, and investigative analysts. In

fiscal year 2010, the TMC and district personnel processed or investigated 1,394 inappropriate communications.

The Marshals Service derives its authority to conduct protective inves-tigations from Title 28 USC§ 566(e)(1)(A). The Court Security Improvement Act of 2007 gave us additional tools to conduct and pursue protective investi-gations. Though we collect and process all threats using our Justice Detainee Information System database, we are in the process of acquiring new tools to enhance our predictive analysis capability. We are developing a comprehensive Threat Management Information System (TMIS) with multiple tools as a “relational” database, built exclusively to support protective investigations and intelligence analysis. TMIS will have more robust tools that will further our ability to collect and review information and intelligence to identify and analyze threats, as well as reveal trends. TMIS also will provide a “persistent stare” capability to review the Internet for potential threats from individuals and domestic terrorist groups, such as the “sovereign citizen movement.”

Judges and staff should take all inappropriate communications seriously, and should report all threats and inappropriate communications to the Marshals Service in a timely manner. All negative, persistent, prolific communica-tions, as well as those with an unusual direction of interest should be reported. Even if not actionable, this behavior is part of pattern that is valuable for an evaluation or assessment of a subject. Judges and their staff should preserve all evidence for the Marshals Service including letters, emails, and phone messages. Also, Marshals Service district offices offer annual security awareness training for the entire court family.

FIRST CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES

PAIDU.S. COURTS

PERMIT NO. G-18

FIRST CLASS

Administrative Office of the U.S. CourtsOffice of Public AffairsOne Columbus Circle, N.E.Washington, D.C. 20544

OFFICIAL BUSINESSPENALTY FOR PRIVATE USE $300

INtErvIEw continued from page 11

Q: How does the USMS use com-puter technology in judicial security? Is our culture’s per-vasive social media a help or a hindrance in this?

A: As you would expect, computer technology is used both in the physical security of courthouses and in the inves-tigation of threats and inappropriate communications.

The explosion of the use of social media on the Internet has created a number of security challenges for the judiciary. Social media, along with the availability of personal information and public records on the Internet, create an environment of additional security risks. One such risk is the potential for the release of sensitive information. This could be as simple as a family member inadver-tently posting information about the

family’s home. These items can jeopardize the security of a federal judge.

Public information continues to pose challenges to the court family. For many years, the Marshals Service has advised the people we protect to have unlisted phone numbers and use the courthouse address instead of the home address whenever possible. Technology has provided greater access to information. Through computers, individuals can plug a little information into a public record search engine and receive a lot of information. For that reason, we strongly urge judges and other officials to complete “opt-out” forms for individual information providers. We have coordinated with the Administrative Office so that the opt-out information is available for judges to follow. Judges also need to be very conscious about who they give infor-mation to, and even where purchases are

made. This is because data aggregators are constantly compiling and selling updated personal information to public record sites, for example, matching credit card numbers with home mailing addresses.

We have also recently begun briefing judicial officers and staff on the risk posed by “geo-tagging” of photographs posted to the Internet. GPS-enabled cameras, as well as iPhones, embed the longitude and latitude of the location a picture was taken. If, for example, a photo of a judge and his or her family is posted on certain Internet sites, someone can grab the geo-tag and identify the location of a private residence.

Just as with e-mail or phone calls, if a judge becomes aware of a threat or inappropriate communication on the Web, he or she should immediately notify the Marshals.