USA v. Martinez et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No. 19-20007-06-DDC
KAYLA UNION (06),
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Defendant Kayla Union has filed a pro se1 motion. Doc. 612. It asks the court to
expunge her felony conviction for money laundering and conspiracy to commit money
laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(h), 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), and 1956(a)(3). Unfortunately, in the
federal courts, any authority to expunge is extremely limited.
No statute grants the court with the power to order expungement. United States v. Pinto,
1 F.3d 1069, 1070 (10th Cir. 1993). Instead, “any authority to order expungement must stem
from the inherent equitable powers of the court.” Id. And our Circuit has held that the court can
use those equitable powers only “in extreme circumstances,”—that is, “an arrest record may be
expunged after dismissal of the charges or acquittal.” Id. Yet “there is a large difference
between expunging the arrest record of a presumably innocent person, and expunging the
conviction of a person adjudged as guilty in a court of law.” Id.
Here, Ms. Union asserts that the court should expunge her conviction because her “past
record has become a major obstacle” to her education and career. Doc. 612. The court
1 	Because Ms. Union filed her motion pro se, the court construes it liberally. See Hall v. Bellmon,
935 F.2d 1106, 1110 (10th Cir. 1991).
Case 2:19-cr-20007-DDC-TJJ Document 614 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 2

commends Ms. Union for her efforts, but expungement isn’t in the cards. This isn’t a case of
dismissal or acquittal; Ms. Union pleaded guilty to the charges against her. Ms. Union’s motion,
like the motion rejected in Pinto, contains “no allegations that the conviction was in any way
improper. The sole contention is that Defendant has been punished enough, and that the presence
of the conviction is unjustly interfering with her efforts to rebuild her life.” 1 F.3d at 1070. So,
the court, as in Pinto, is “without power to expunge [Ms. Union’s] conviction.” Id.
The court thus denies the motion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT defendant Kayla Union’s
Motion for Expungement (Doc. 612) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 4th day of November, 2025, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Daniel D. Crabtree
Daniel D. Crabtree
United States District Judge
Case 2:19-cr-20007-DDC-TJJ Document 614 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 2