912 F. 2d 470 - United States v. Gaensel
912 F2d 470 United States v. Gaensel
912 F.2d 470
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
Helmut GAENSEL, Defendant/Appellant.
No. 90-30030.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 7, 1990.*
Decided Aug. 23, 1990.
Before TANG, CANBY and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
Appellant Helmut Gaensel appeals orders of the district court dated August 8, 1989, October 16, 1989 and December 5, 1989 denying motions for permission to travel. Gaensel is currently under a sentence of parole, after serving a six month prison term, for violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1014. Specifically, Gaensel was convicted for overvaluing collateral used in connection with a bank loan. The terms of his parole require Gaensel to obtain permission to travel. He asked the district court to grant him permission to travel to Germany, Switzerland and Israel "for business purposes". The motions and accompanying affidavits are vague as to what those "business purposes" are.
On appeal, Gaensel claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying his motions for permission to travel. In addition, he argues that the denial of the motions violates his constitutional right to travel. We affirm the orders of the district court.
DISCUSSION
Right to Travel. Gaensel claims that the court's denial of permission to travel abroad violated his right to travel. We note that as a parolee, appellant is currently serving a criminal sentence. Individuals on parole do not enjoy the right to travel possessed by other citizens. Bagley v. Harvey, 718 F.2d 921, 923 (9th Cir.1983). "[A]n individual's constitutional right to travel, having been legally extinguished by a valid conviction followed by imprisonment, is not revived by the change in status from prisoner to parolee." Id. We therefore find that the orders of the district court did not violate Gaensel's right to travel.
District Court Orders. Gaensel claims that the district court abused its discretion in denying him permission to travel abroad. He claims that he poses no risk of flight and that this trip is necessary for him to earn the money required for the restitution element of his sentence. He therefore claims that the restrictions on travel are unreasonable.1
There are numerous rational reasons for the court to deny Gaensel permission to travel abroad. First, there are strong policy reasons to restrict all parolees from traveling abroad: there is virtually no means of monitoring the actions of a parolee while he or she is out of the country. In addition, Gaensel is not a United States citizen and therefore presents a greater risk of flight. Finally, appellant has been quite vague in describing his reasons for traveling abroad.
We give great discretion to the district court in determining the conditions of an individual's probation. In this case, we see no reason to find an abuse of that discretion.
Advertisement
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34 (a) and Ninth Circuit Rule 34-3
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. Rule 36-3
Appellant also claims that he was denied access to Probation Office letters to the judge recommending that his motions be denied. These letters are not under seal and are therefore a part of the public record in this case. Appellant has access to the letters through the court file