USA v. GOGUEN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 	)
) 	1:11-cr-00003-JAW
v. 	) 	1:16-cr-00167-JAW
)
ROBERT GOGUEN 	)
ORDER ON MOTION TO STAY THE PROCEEDINGS AND REQUEST FOR
RELEASE
On May 7, 2020, Robert Goguen, acting pro se, filed a motion to stay the
proceedings and a motion for release from incarceration. 	Mot. to Stay Proceedings
and Req. for Release (ECF No. 334; ECF No. 152).1 Mr. Goguen asks that the Court
“stay any of the proceedings in connection with the above entitled dockets, pending
resolution of [his] motion for relief concerning related matters (ECF 331), filed on 17
April 2020.” 	Id. at 1. 	He also asks to be released because of “complicated health
issues and an inability to obtain proper medical attention,” specifically mentioning
COVID-19. Id.
Mr. Goguen is currently incarcerated on two bases. 	First, on September 15,
2017, Mr. Goguen admitted to two violations of the conditions of his supervised
release on 1:11-cr-0003-JAW, and the Court remanded him to custody following his
admission to these violations. Min. Entry (ECF No. 193). Second, also on September
15, 2017, Mr. Goguen admitted new criminal conduct in 1:16-cr-00167-JAW, namely
1 	To simplify citation, the Court has not recited the docket number for Mr. Goguen’s two criminal
cases in this Court each time it referred to a filed document. Instead, when a document appears on
both dockets, the higher number is a citation to 1:11-cr-00003-JAW and the lower to 1:16-cr-00167-
JAW.
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 336 Filed 05/11/20 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
possession of child pornography, and the Court remanded him to custody following
his admission of guilt. Min. Entry (ECF No. 64). According to the Revocation Report
on the supervised release violations, Mr. Goguen faces a maximum of two years of
incarceration for the supervised release violations and he faces a guideline sentence
range of eight to fourteen months. Second Am. Revocation Report at 9.
According to the Third Revised Presentence Investigation Report for the
possession of child pornography, however, Mr. Goguen faces a statutory minimum of
ten 	years 	of 	incarceration 	and 	a 	maximum 	of 	twenty 	years. 	Third 	Revised
Presentence Investigation Report ¶ 74. 	The guideline sentence range, as calculated
by the Probation Office, is one hundred and twenty to one hundred and twenty-five
months. 	Id. ¶ 75. 	Mr. Goguen has not yet been sentenced on either the supervised
release 	offenses 	or 	the 	new 	criminal 	conduct 	due 	to 	multiple 	post-guilty
plea/admissions motions.
Once he pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography, Mr. Goguen became
subject to the mandatory detention provision of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2), which provides
that the judicial officer “shall” order that a person who has been found guilty of
certain offenses, including the possession of child pornography, be detained pending
the imposition of sentence. 	See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(f)(1)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. §§
3143(a)(2), 3156(a)(3)(C). 	The provision applies unless (1) “there is a substantial
likelihood that a motion for acquittal or new trial will be granted” or “an attorney for
the government has recommended that no sentence of imprisonment be imposed upon
the person,” and (2) “the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 336 Filed 05/11/20 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community.”
§ 3143(a)(2). 	There is nothing in the record that would allow the Court to conclude
Mr. Goguen could meet these criteria. Mr. Goguen has been incarcerated under these
mandatory detention provisions.
There is an escape provision in 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c), but Mr. Goguen has not
demonstrated “exceptional reasons” why his detention would not be appropriate. In
addition, § 3145(c) incorporates the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1)-(2) and,
therefore, to be released, he would have to meet the criterion of § 3143(a)(1). Under
that provision, Mr. Goguen would have to show that there is “clear and convincing
evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other
person or the community if released under section 3142(b) or (c).” 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3143(a)(1). While this requirement includes only the second half of the provisions
in § 3143(a)(2), there is still nothing in the record that would allow the Court to
conclude Mr. Goguen has met this criterion.
The CARES Act compassionate release provisions do not appear to apply to
Mr. Goguen because the Court has not yet imposed sentence on him. 	18 U.S.C.
§ 3582(c) (“The court may not modify a term of imprisonment once it has been
imposed”) (emphasis supplied). 	In short, the Court has not been presented with a
legal or factual basis to release Mr. Goguen.
Regarding Mr. Goguen's motion to stay the proceedings until his motion for
relief filed under 1:11-cr-00003-JAW’s docket number 331 is resolved, the Court is
perplexed why Mr. Goguen would want to stay all proceedings except his April 16,
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 336 Filed 05/11/20 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
2020 motion. 	On January 16, 2020, Mr. Goguen filed an extensive motion to
withdraw his guilty plea of July 14, 2011, in 1:11-cr-0003-JAW and to withdraw his
revocation admissions of September 15, 2017, in 1:16-cr-00167-JAW. 	Def.’s Pro Se
Mot. to Withdraw Guilty Plea(s) and Req. for Order to Disqualify Hon. John A.
Woodcock, Jr. (ECF No. 309; ECF No. 132). This motion is proceeding and recently,
after filing a motion and obtaining an order, the Government obtained an affidavit
from 	Mr. 	Goguen’s 	former 	defense 	counsel, 	Attorney 	Hunter 	Tzovarras, 	that
presumably responds to Mr. Goguen’s allegations against his former attorney. Gov’t’s
Mot. for Ct. Order Authorizing Disclosure of Confidential Communications (ECF No.
313; ECF No. 136); Order on Gov’t’s Mot. for Ct. Order Authorizing Disclosure (ECF
No. 330; ECF No. 150). 	Mr. Goguen’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea and
admissions is grinding toward resolution with the Government’s response due on or
before May 15, 2020.
With the motion to withdraw his guilty plea and admissions still pending, on
April 16, 2020, Mr. Goguen filed a new motion in 1:11-cr-0003-JAW entitled “Request
for the Article III Judge to Provide by any Equitable Means Necessary by Indicative
Ruling Relief in an Expedited Manner.” Req. for Article III Judge to Provide by any
Equitable Means Necessary by Indicative Ruling Relief in Expedited Manner (ECF
No. 331). 	For some unclear reason, Mr. Goguen prefers that the Court stay his
January 16, 2020, motion to withdraw his guilty plea and admission, resolve his April
16, 2020, request for indicative ruling, and then return to his motion to withdraw his
guilty plea and admissions. The Court does not know why it should put Mr. Goguen’s
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 336 Filed 05/11/20 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
earlier-filed motion to withdraw on the back burner while resolving Mr. Goguen’s
later motion for indicative ruling when the most expeditious resolution is to proceed
with both as soon as they are ready for decision.
Finally, on September 15, 2017, Mr. Goguen admitted that he violated the
conditions of his supervised release and admitted he committed new criminal
conduct. Despite the Court’s efforts, it has not been able to sentence him for over two
and one-half years, a longer delay between admission and guilty plea than the Court
can recall in any other criminal case. The Court intends to address the merits of his
newly-filed motions as soon as they are ready for decision. If meritorious, Mr. Goguen
should know sooner than later; if not, Mr. Goguen should proceed to a sentencing
hearing. There is no reason to delay.
The Court DENIES Robert Goguen’s Motion to Stay the Proceedings and
Request for Release (ECF No. 334; ECF No. 152).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 11th day of May, 2020
Case 1:11-cr-00003-JAW Document 336 Filed 05/11/20 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>