Tonge v. United States of America

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
—————————————————————X
SHARON TONGE,
Petitioner, 	MEMORANDUM & ORDER
-against- 	24-mc-2597 (NRM)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent.
—————————————————————X
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Sharon Tonge, proceeding pro se, petitions to expunge her 1988
conviction for knowingly and intentionally conspiring to distribute and possess with
intent to distribute cocaine. Pet. to Expunge (“Pet.”), ECF No. 1 (June 28, 2024); see
Resp’t Opp’n Letter (“Opp’n Ltr.”) at 1, ECF No. 4 (Sep. 15, 2025).1 Since this Court
lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief Petitioner requests, her petition is denied.
BACKGROUND
On August 3, 1988, Sharon Tonge was convicted of knowingly and intentionally
conspiring to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C.
§§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). See Opp’n Ltr. Ex. A (“Conviction Record”) at 2, ECF No. 4-
1 (Sep. 15, 2025).2 	She was sentenced to an eight-year term in the custody of the
Bureau of Prisons, followed by five years of supervised release. Id.
1 Citations refer to ECF pagination unless otherwise noted.
2 Given that the case pre-dates electronic filings, the government has attached
the criminal filings to its letter brief.
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
During 	her 	incarceration, 	Petitioner 	took 	courses 	at 	Eastern 	Kentucky
University, and her excellent behavioral record led her counselor to recommend that
she be transferred to a program with twenty months still left on her sentence. 	Pet.
at 4. 	Upon her release in 1995, Petitioner moved back to Brooklyn to live with her
mother, began working two jobs, and took computer classes at a local church. Id. She
eventually earned a bachelor’s degree in business administration and computer
information systems, as well as a master’s degree in labor studies. 	Id. 	In the two
decades since her release, Petitioner has had no further contact with the criminal
legal system. Id. at 2. Despite all her achievements, however, she alleges that this
decades-old felony conviction has “persistently haunted” her and “been used against
[her] in many ways.” 	Id. at 4. 	For this reason, on June 28, 2024, Petitioner filed a
petition to have her record sealed.3 Id. at 1. The United States Attorney’s Office for
the Eastern District of New York filed a letter brief in opposition on September 15,
2025. See generally Opp’n Ltr.
3 Although Ms. Tonge’s motion is titled as a motion to expunge, see Pet. at 1,
her letter specifically requests her file be “sealed” not expunged. 	Id. at 1, 4. 	Her
requested relief under the Clean Slate Act, further supports this interpretation, given
that the only remedy available under that law is sealing. 	See N.Y. Crim. Proc. L.
§ 160.59(2)(a). 	Nonetheless, Second Circuit courts have used the terms “expunge”
and “seal” interchangeably and “apply the same standard when deciding motions to
seal and motions to expunge criminal records.” Melvin v. United States, No. 18-MC-
3359 (LB), 2019 WL 5394646, at *1 n.1 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2019) (citing Ruiz v. United
States, No. 19-MC-850 (MKB), 2019 WL 3388817, at *1 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. July 25, 2019);
see also Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192, 196 n.1 (2d Cir. 2016) (finding that,
although the petitioner’s motion was titled motion to “expunge,” sealing was a more
accurate term for requested relief, but using the term “expunge” to be consistent with
the parties’ briefs).
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
LEGAL STANDARD
In Doe v. United States, the Second Circuit held that a district court generally
lacks jurisdiction to seal or expunge a valid criminal record. 	833 F.3d 192, 199 (2d
Cir. 2016). 	After Doe, district courts have “repeatedly held that they do not have
subject matter jurisdiction or ancillary jurisdiction to seal or expunge a valid
conviction record unless specifically authorized by Congress.” 	Hurlburt v. United
States, No. 94-CR-866 (NSR), 2022 WL 2714070, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 13, 2022)
(quoting United States v. Bolera, No. 00-CR-631 (PKC), 2021 WL 5232452, at *2
(S.D.N.Y. Nov. 9, 2021).
Absent inherent authority, “Congress has previously authorized district courts
to expunge lawful convictions [only] under certain limited circumstances.” Doe, 833
F.3d at 199. Currently, there is one method to seal or expunge otherwise valid federal
criminal convictions under the Federal First Offender Act (“FFOA”). See 18 U.S.C. §
3607(c); United States v. Buonagura, No. 98-CR-747 (DC), 2025 WL 880478, at *1 n.1
(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2025) (noting that, apart from 18 U.S.C. § 3607, there are “no other
Acts 	of 	Congress 	that 	authorize 	this 	Court 	to 	expunge 	or 	seal 	[petitioner]’s
conviction”).
DISCUSSION
Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition for several reasons.
First, Petitioner's invocation of New York’s Clean Slate Act is inapplicable. See
Pet. at 1. 	The Clean Slate Act is a state law that automatically seals certain state
criminal convictions after the passage of a specified waiting period. 	See N.Y. Crim.
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
Proc. L. § 160.57(1) (“Convictions for certain traffic infractions or a crime defined in
the laws of the state shall be sealed in accordance with this section . . . .” (emphasis
added)). As such, federal convictions such a Petitioner’s are outside the scope of the
Act.4
Second, this Court lacks jurisdiction over a petition seeking to expunge a
conviction based on collateral consequences. 	As the Second Circuit stated in Doe,
federal courts do not have the inherent authority to expunge or seal a criminal
conviction on equitable grounds. 	833 F.3d at 198–99. 	Petitioner is not challenging
the validity of her underlying conviction; rather, she is requesting that her records be
sealed due to the persistent collateral consequences of her felony record. 	See
generally Pet. 	This is precisely the kind of equitable exercise of the Court’s power
that the Second Circuit found impermissible in Doe. See 833 F.3d at 198–99 (noting
that requesting to expunge records due to “collateral employment consequences” or
other events “unrelated to the sentencing and that transpire[d] long after the
conviction itself” constituted “equitable grounds” and holding that district courts have
no jurisdiction to grant an expungement under such circumstances). In light of Doe,
courts in this district routinely find that they lack ancillary jurisdiction over
expungement requests that cite the collateral consequences of federal criminal
4 This alone does not necessarily defeat the petition. In line with federal courts’
liberal construction of pro se pleadings, this Court can still consider whether it may
have other jurisdiction to expunge this conviction. See Ninying v. Fire Dep’t, 416 F.
Supp. 3d 175, 178 (E.D.N.Y. 2017) (“Because pro se litigants are entitled to a liberal
construction of their pleadings, their complaints should be read to raise the strongest
arguments that they suggest”) (citing Sykes v. Bank of Am., 723 F.3d 399, 403 (2d
Cir. 2013)).
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
convictions. 	See Mount v. United States, No. 19-MC-3043 (LDH), 2021 WL 722434,
at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 24, 2021) (noting that district courts in the Second Circuit “do
not have jurisdiction to expunge valid criminal convictions”) (citing Doe, 833 F.3d at
197); Patterson v. United States, No. 19-MC-2986 (LDH), 2020 WL 5820155, at *1
(E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2020) (denying a motion to expunge or seal a criminal record
because the court “had no authority to expunge the records of a valid conviction”);
Melvin v. United States, No. 18-MC-3359 (LB), 2019 WL 5394646, at *2 (E.D.N.Y.
Oct. 21, 2019) (dismissing an expungement petition because “the petitioner does not
challenge the validity of her conviction,” “the underlying criminal case concluded
almost a decade ago,” and the petitioner “has not supplied other facts that could
distinguish her case from Doe or qualify for the limited exceptions that would allow
the [c]ourt to consider the motion”); United States v. King, No. 14-CR-357 (PKC), 2017
WL 4326492, at *1–2 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2017) (denying a motion to expunge where
petitioner 	alleged 	he 	had 	suffered 	collateral 	consequences 	related 	to 	finding
employment).
Finally, this Court’s narrow statutory authority, granted by Congress via the
FFOA, does not apply here. Under the FFOA, a court may expunge a criminal record
upon successful completion of probation only if a person (1) has no prior drug
conviction; (2) is found guilty of misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance, as
governed under Section 404 of the Controlled Substances Act; (3) was twenty-one
years old or younger at the time of the offense; and (4) the convicting court imposed
probation before entry of judgement. 	18 U.S.C. § 3607. 	Here, Petitioner’s motion
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
fails at the second prong because she was convicted of a crime under a different
section of the Controlled Substances Act — namely, knowingly and intentionally
conspiring to distribute under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846 and 841(b)(1)(C). 	See generally
Conviction Record. 	As such, her conviction is ineligible for the relief this Court is
authorized to grant pursuant to the FFOA.
Although the state Clean Slate Act is not applicable to her conviction, this
Court echoes several other district court decisions in noting that Petitioner may still
be able to take advantage of other New York state law protections to mitigate the
impacts of her decades-old conviction. 	See, e.g., Blair v. United States, No. 23-MC-
688 (NRM), 2023 WL 5417357, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 22, 2023); Buonagura, 2025 WL
880478, at *2 n.2; Yearwood v. United States, No. 18-MC-1835 (KAM), 2022 WL
4662091, at *2 n.3 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2022). 	For instance, New York state law
“prohibits employers from denying or taking adverse action on a job application,
because of an applicant’s previous conviction unless there is a ‘direct relationship’
between the offense and the employment sought, or granting employment would
involve ‘unreasonable risk.’” Yearwood, 2022 WL 4662091, at *2 n.3 (citing Belardo
v. United States, No. 21-MC-1016 (AMD), 2021 WL 4972495, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 26,
2021) and N.Y. Corr. L. §§ 752–53). 	Similarly, New York City local law “prohibits
employers from asking about an applicant’s criminal history before making a
conditional offer of employment.” 	Yearwood, 2022 WL 4662091, at *2 n.3 (citing
N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(11-a)).
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
This Court’s conclusion does not cast judgment on Petitioner’s subjective
experience of the collateral effects of her conviction. Cf. United States v. Nesbeth, 188
F. 	Supp. 	3d 	179, 	180–87 	(E.D.N.Y. 	2016) 	(detailing 	the 	impacts 	of 	collateral
consequences and concluding that, “[t]oday, the collateral consequences of a felony
conviction form a new civil death”). Nor, as this Court noted in Blair, is this decision
a comment on the merits of Petitioner’s argument that she should “no longer have to
bear the weight of a felony conviction on [her] record over two decades after [her]
successful reintegration into society.” 	2023 WL 5417357, at *2. 	If, at some point,
Congress chooses to grant federal district courts the discretion to expunge otherwise
valid 	convictions 	on 	equitable 	grounds, 	individuals 	like 	Petitioner 	may 	have
recourse.5 	But until that time, this Court lacks jurisdiction to expunge or seal her
conviction, and her petition must be denied for that reason.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this Court denies the petition, and it is hereby
dismissed without prejudice.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
NINA R. MORRISON
United States District Judge
Dated: December 4, 2025
Brooklyn, New York
5 In Buonagura, Judge Chin noted that the Collateral Consequences Resource
Center maintains a current guide on federal post-conviction remedies and is available
for petitioners as a resource. 2025 WL 880478, at *1 n.1 (citing Federal Restoration
of 	Rights 	& 	Record 	Relief, 	Collateral 	Consequences 	Resource
Center, https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/federalrestoration-of-
rights-pardon-expungement-sealing/ [perma.cc/3MLQ-VHZW] (last updated Nov. 15,
2025)).
Case 1:24-mc-02597-NRM Document 5 Filed 12/04/25 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:
<pageID>