Many of you are well aware that after Yraida's release, she was working as a paralegal for a law office, and her parole officer made her stop because "she would come in contact with criminals" through her work, therefore breaking her parole.... she has appealed this and won! Score one for the good guys!! Please read her latest endeavors....
Post from July 17. 2007:
My Dear Friends,
I promised that I was going to tell all of you about my new job. There is a lot to talk about it. However, I want to share with you for what I am amazingly grateful about my new job, so you can share it with my fellow prisoners and with friends (society). Prisoners can survive in the society if we all do our part.
1. The trust that my boss have bestowed on me. After I was release from prison I thought that nobody will ever trust me again and that no employer will ever trust me to that extent. He not only have trust me as an employee by giving me a password to access the pay legal web-sides; he have also send me to perform business duties in his behalf. Further He also allowed me to accompanied him to a mediation meeting in a discrimination case.Furthermore he have trust me in his personal life too; by allowing me in his home and share with his wife and children, specially with his beautiful little daughter.
2. Work environment. My boss said the other day:" I have former prosecutors and former prisoners working together." Unbelievable but it is true, I work side by side with a soon to be a lawyer that previously worked in the state attorney office. I not only share with her the office, we also are working together in some cases. Everything is possible if we put our differences asides and work together for the good of our society.
3. What I do. I am presently working on cases about human rights and constitutional rights violations which is my passion. I am also learning about state laws and procedures. Some of you know that I have problems with English grammar but I am surviving by using my other traits.
I am sending you this e-mail from my work e-mail address(authorized by my boss) so you can learn more about the law firms that I work for. The law firm specialize in the following fields: Criminal Law (State & Federal); Asset Protection; Corporate Law; DUI & Traffic; Health Care Law; Malpractice; Real Estate; Collections: Estate Planning; Immigration; Nursing Home Abuse & Neglect; Social Security Benefits; Condominium Owners Association; Defective Products; Family Law; Insurance Law; Personal Injury; Workers Comp; Prisoners' constitutional rights violations (on contingency basis) human rights violations and more. Visit our web-site at
www.kabalaw.com . If you, family or friend need a lawyer in Florida and/or you know a counsel that needs to co-counsel a case in Florida, feel free to contact my boss at
moiseskaba@kabalaw.com. I truly recommends him not only as a professional but also as a very compassionate person.
Thanks and I love you all.
Post from October 7. 2007:
Dear Friends:
It has been a while since I posted the last PIT, which was titled "My New Job". Everything was so wonderful, I was proud of my job and I was learning a lot.
One of the job duties was to assist the attorney in the preparation of the case from the beginning to the end. It required me to call prosecutors, agents, judicial assistant, court's employee and every party involved in the case under the attorney's instructions.
I was thrilled with the experience that I was receiving, however the probation office supervisor was not so thrilled. With the blink of an eye she snatched my future, my salary, my joy and my tranquility when she denied me to work as a paralegal.
With no more reason than "prosecutors, judges and agents are not going to feel comfortable knowing that they are talking with a criminal", the supervisor of the probation office decided that they would not allow me to work as a Legal Assistant or Paralegal.
I am still in shock, and of course in tears (tears are my relief from frustration). I just can not believe it! If I continue working as a Paralegal they will violate me and send me back to prison. Go back to prison for having a lawful and good paying job?.
My crime (drug trafficking) does not have anything to do with my present job detail, there is no special condition of supervised release in my judgment.(See US v. Yraida L. Guanipa. Southern District of Florida. Case No.: 96-Cr-222). What really astonished me was the fact that the probation office filed a confidential memorandum regarding the denial of my employment. The Judge issued an order agreeing with the probation office to denied my employment. Further, I was not allowed, neither my attorney to read it or even have a copy of the memorandum. And guess what? There is not even a record in the court of such memorandum being filed. Can we call this Democracy?.
Nevertheless my attorney filed a Motion to Clarified the conditions of supervised release. The motion was denied within a few days with a simple statement "Denied".
Dear friends, I would like to hear your opinion, because I do not comprehend this. I do not have words to explain to you how I feel. I thought that my litigation with the Federal Government was over after I was released from prison, but the reality is that the punishment never ends when you are convicted of a crime in this country of so called liberty and freedom. Thanks and I love you all.
Yraida l. Guanipa
Posted 4/13/09:
Dear Friends:
Happy Holidays, Passover and Easter for all of you. Even thought I had not written a PITO (Prison Issues Talk Online) for a while, a was still writing, only that this time I was concentrated writing the appellant brief and reply brief of my last appeal about the fact that the probation officer did not allowed me to work as a Paralegal; and I want to share with allof you the victory.
I am grateful to Randy Murrell, Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of Florida who guided me in this appeal, he patiently listened my opininons and shared my tears from my furstation and impotency while I went tru the process, I could not find any lawyer, nor a paralegal who believed in my claims to be presented to the eleventh circuit court of appeals, only he, He supported and guided me to the process of filing and writing the appeal as Pro Se. I share this victory with him.
Find attached the ruling form the elventh circuit court of appeals, share it with all your friends and I would love to hear your opinion.
*****BECAUSE THIS WAS A PDF FILE, I AM SIMPLY CUTTING AND PASTING IT HERE FOR EASY VIEWING... ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE ACTUAL FILE, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT
STEFFIMARIE79@MSN.COM.... THANKS, STEFFI
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 07-14764
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 96-00222-CR-FAM
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
YRAIDA LEONIDES GUANIPA,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida
_________________________
(April 8, 2009)
Before DUBINA, CARNES and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Yraida Leonides Guanipa, a federal prisoner convicted of
attempted possession with intent to distribute cocaine, appeals the district court’s
summary denial of her motion to clarify the conditions of her supervised released
that was filed after the probation officer denied her authority to work as a legal
assistant.
We review the district court's application of the law to sentencing issues de
novo. United States v. Campa, 529 F.3d 980, 992 (11th Cir. 2008), petition for
cert. filed, Jan. 20, 2009 (No. 08-987). “We review the terms of supervised release
for abuse of discretion.” See United States v. Dodge, 554 F.3d 1357, 1360 (11th
Cir. 2009). A remand is necessary when the record on appeal is insufficient to
enable meaningful review. See United States v. Campbell, 473 F.3d 1345, 1347
(11th Cir. 2007).
A probation officer may “use all suitable methods, not inconsistent with the
conditions specified by the court, to aid a probationer or a person on supervised
release who is under his supervision, and to bring about improvements in his
conduct and condition.” 18 U.S.C. § 3603(3). However, under 18 U.S.C. § 3583,
district courts retain the ultimate responsibility for ensuring that a defendant has
complied with the conditions of her supervised release. See Gozlon-Peretz v.
United States, 498 U.S. 395, 400–01, 111 S. Ct. 840, 844–45, 112 L. Ed. 2d 919,
(1991) (noting that, with § 3583, Congress placed responsibility for overseeing a
defendant's post-confinement monitoring with the sentencing court). Additionally,
under § 3583, a district court may modify the conditions of supervised release, but,
under Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(c), before modifying the conditions of supervised
release, the court must hold a hearing, “at which the person has the right to counsel
and an opportunity to make a statement and present any information in mitigation.”
Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(c).
In United States v. Dempsey, 180 F.3d 1325, 13226 (11th Cir. 1999), we
held that district courts are exclusively authorized with imposing occupational
restrictions as a condition of supervised release, and that probation officers lack
such authority. In so holding, we further reasoned that U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5, which
implements 18 U.S.C. § 3583(d), “authorizes only a court to impose occupational
restrictions and restricts its authority to do so to those instances where the court
specifically finds (1) a reasonably direct relationship between the occupational
restriction and the conduct relevant to the defendant’s offense and (2) the
restriction is reasonably necessary to protect the public from the possibility the
defendant will continue to engage in unlawful conduct similar to that for which he
was convicted.” Dempsey, 180 F.3d at 1326 (quoting U.S.S.G. § 5F1.5).
Moreover, the Supreme Court has noted that associational conditions do not extend
to casual or chance meetings, and an “occupational association, standing alone,”
does not provide sufficient evidence of a violation of a supervised release
restriction. See Arciniega v. Freeman, 404 U.S. 4, 4, 92 S. Ct. 22, 22, 30 L. Ed. 2d
126 (1971).
Lastly, courts sometimes may use categorical terms to outline the contours
of supervised release conditions, and such categorical terms generally provide
sufficient notice of prohibited conduct when there is a plain understanding of what
activities those categories cover. United States v. Taylor, 338 F.3d 1280, 1286
(11th Cir. 2003).
However, the committee notes to Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b) state specifically
that a defendant should have an opportunity to obtain clarification of a term or
condition of supervised release so that the defendant may have an opportunity to
comply with the court's order without first having to violate it, and caselaw
supports the procedural right to seek clarification. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.1(b)
advisory committee’s note; Dempsey, 180 F.3d at 1325–26 (considering a
defendant’s Rule 32.1(b) motion to have occupational restrictions imposed by
probation officer modified or clarified).
Here, the conditions of Guanipa’s supervised release did not include any
occupational restrictions, and the court effectively imposed such a restriction based
on its broad application of a restriction that she not “associate” with any persons
engaged in criminal activity or convicted felons. The court’s lack of explanation in
denying Guanipa’s motion does not provide an opportunity for meaningful
appellate review. More importantly, because an “occupational association,
standing alone” is insufficient evidence of a likely violation of the criminal
association restriction, we vacate and remand for the purpose of allowing the
district court to clarify the conditions of supervised release and reconcile those
with Guanipa’s requirement to work. If the court finds that an occupational
restriction is necessary, it needs to elaborate, following a hearing, why such a
restriction has a reasonable relationship to her convicted conduct and is reasonably
necessary to protect the public. Accordingly, we vacate and remand for further
proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
