United States v. Aileen Bortels
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Aileen BORTELS, Defendant-Appellant
Opinion
PER CURIAM.
Aileen Bortels (appellant) initially had been indicted for assaulting, resisting or interfering with a United States Deputy Marshal in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111 , and harboring, or concealing a person for whom an arrest warrant had been issued in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1071 . On June 4, 1991, the' appellant pleaded guilty to the § 111 violations. Subsequently, the court sentenced Bortels to six months imprisonment and a one year period of supervised release with the condition that appellant may have no contact, directly or indirectly, with anyone who has been convicted of a felony, particularly Cohen, during this one year term. Appellant appealed the court imposed condition of her supervised release.
The charges against Bortels arose from an incident that occurred on April 20, 1991, when she was involved in a high speed chase while fleeing from Michigan State Police and a plain clothes Deputy United States Marshal after she was informed that her passenger, Cohen, was under arrest for violating his parole. The appellant admitted that she drove the vehicle at speeds reaching at least 50 to 55 miles per hour in residential streets and 70 to 75 miles per hour on an expressway. The chase ended when the appellant rammed into a marked Michigan State Police cruiser and an unmarked U.S. Marshal Service vehicle. Thereafter, both the appellant and Cohen were arrested.
After being held without bond for four months because the magistrate thought she was a flight risk and may try to break her lover-Cohen out of jail, the court sentenced appellant to a six month period of incarceration and a one year period of supervised release in which she was prohibited from associating with Cohen or other convicted felons.' Prior to sentencing, the court concluded that appellant would not be in jail but for her association with Cohen, recognizing that her rehabilitation would be aided if she avoided future contact with her fiancé. Further, the court was concerned that the safety of the comnrunity would be at stake if she had contact with Cohen during the supervised release period because she had already risked injuring innocent bystanders during the high speed chase and may act impulsively again in the future in order to protect her fiancé *560 from law enforcement authorities. This Circuit mandates that where a condition of supervised release is reasonably related to the dual goals of probation, the rehabilitation of the defendant £tnd the protection of the public, it must be upheld.
United States v. Holloway, 740 F.2d 1373, 1383 (6th Cir.1984);
see also United States v. Showalter, 933 F.2d 573 (7th Cir.1991) (where court recognized that 18 U.S.C. § 3563 (b)(7) authorized court to impose such a condition). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the condition that appellant not associate with her fiancé for one year during the period of supervised release.
Accordingly, upon the record in its entirety, the briefs and arguments of counsel, the appellant’s sentence is hereby AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 7 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that a condition of supervised release “must be upheld” if it meets these twin goals of probation)
-
(upholding a condition prohibiting the defendant from associating with her fiancé or any other convicted felon)
-
(affirming district court’s special condition preventing appellant from communicating with her fiancé because it aided in the rehabilitation of appellant and protected the public)
-
(upholding supervised release condition that restricted individual associating with fiancée because the individual endangered the community by getting involved in a high-speed chase to prevent fiancée from getting arrested)
-
(prohibiting defendant from associating with fiancé because crime arose from that association)
-
(the defendant, as a condition of supervised release, was prohibited from associating with her fiancee because she had acted recklessly and endangered the community at large in a high-speed chase to protect her fiancee from arrest)
Cited by 52 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.