Case: 7:15-cr-00022-DCR-EBA Doc #: 202 Filed: 05/18/17 Page: 1 of 2 - Page ID#: 1476

No. 17-5064

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS May 18, 2017

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)
Plaintiff-Appellee, )
)
v. ) ORDER
)
ROBERT PORTER, )
)
Defendant-Appellant. )
)
)

Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE, and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

on three counts of federal program theft and bribery in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666. He now

moves for release on bail pending a decision on the merits of his appeal. The district court has

governed by the bail statute, which requires him to demonstrate by clear

and convincing evidence that his release would not pose a risk of flight or danger to another person

or the community and that his appeal is not for delay and raises a substantial question of law or fact

ence to a term of imprisonment less than the total of the time already served plus the

18 U.S.C. 3143(b)(1). This statute creates a

presumption against release pending appeal. United States v. Chilingirian, 280 F.3d 704, 709 (6th

Cir. 2002). We agree with the district court that not pose a risk of flight or
Case: 7:15-cr-00022-DCR-EBA Doc #: 202 Filed: 05/18/17 Page: 2 of 2 - Page ID#: 1477
No. 17-5064
-2-

danger to another person or the community. He has failed, however, to demonstrate that this

appeal raises a substantial question of law or fact likely to result in reversal. See United States v.

Pollard, 778 F.2d 1177, 1182 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Powell, 761 F.2d 1227, 1233 34

(8th Cir. 1985) (en banc).

In McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016) the Supreme Court clarified the

Id. at 2367 68. Porter argues that

holding extends to bribery convictions under 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(B). But

that is in 201, and the text says

nothing of a quid pro quo requirement. See United States v. Abbey, 560 F.3d 513, 520 (6th Cir.

2009). And assuming for the sake of argument that an official act and a quid pro quo are

necessary, the district court found that the proof at trial established both. Lastly, Porter was

required to make timely objections in the district court to the errors that he identifies in his bail

motion. To the extent that he failed to do so, we review th rulings for plain error

only. Errors that are harmless, have no prejudicial effect, or have been insufficiently preserved

do not qualify as substantial questions for purposes of the bail statute. Powell, 761 F.2d at 1231.

Porter has not overcome the presumption against release pending appeal.

Therefore, the motion for release pending appeal is DENIED.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT

Deborah S. Hunt, Clerk

Case: 7:15-cr-00022-DCR-EBA Doc #: 202-1 Filed: 05/18/17 Page: 1 of 1 - Page ID#:
1478

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
100 EAST FIFTH STREET, ROOM 540
Deborah S. Hunt POTTER STEWART U.S. COURTHOUSE Tel. (513) 564-7000
Clerk CINCINNATI, OHIO 45202-3988 www.ca6.uscourts.gov

Filed: May 18, 2017

Mr. Jarrod James Beck

Law Office
709 Millpond Road
Lexington, KY 40514

Mr. Charles P. Wisdom Jr.

Office of the U.S. Attorney
260 W. Vine Street
Suite 300
Lexington, KY 40507

Re: Case No. 17-5064, USA v. Robert Porter

Originating Case No. : 7:15-cr-00022-1

Dear Counsel,

The Court issued the enclosed Order today in this case.

Sincerely yours,

s/Jill Colyer
Case Manager
Direct Dial No. 513-564-7024

cc: Mr. Robert R. Carr

Ms. Kate K. Smith
Mr. Mark A. Wohlander

Enclosure