govinfo:USCOURTS-mdd-8_18-cr-00093-2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Criminal Action No. PX -18-093-8 
 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM ORDER 
Defendant Cedric Hardie moves to expunge any record of his federal criminal conviction. 
See ECF No. 353. For the following reasons, the request must be denied. 
On May 25, 2018, Hardie pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent 
to distribute a quantity of a mixture and substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine. ECF 
No. 83. The Court sentenced Hardie to 41 months imprisonment, followed by three years 
supervised release. ECF No. 148. On April 27, 2026, Hardie filed his motion to expunge, citing 
his lack of subsequent criminal involvement and years of productivity in support. ECF No. 353. 
Hardie also emphasizes that the conviction hinders his ability to obtain necessary clearances for 
his trucking business. Id. 
Although the Court commends Hardie for his admirable progress, it regrettably lacks the 
power to grant his requested relief. Congress has conferred on the courts expungement power only 
to amend inaccurate records, see 5 U.S.C. § 552a(d)(2) (2012) , or for certain drug -possession 
offenses, see 18 U.S.C. § 3607(c) (2012) . Likewise, any inherent power to expunge a record of 
conviction, if it exists, would only apply in the most exceptional circumstances. The Fourth Circuit 
observed, nearly 40 years ago, that a federal court has limited equitab le power to expunge 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 
 
 
 v. 
 
CEDRIC LEVAUGHN HARDIE 
 
 Defendant. 
 

convictions, to be exercised only in “exceptional circumstances.” Allen v. Webster, 742 F.2d 153, 
155 (4th Cir. 1984). At that time, courts found that expungement of a conviction was appropriate 
if “necessary to preserve basic legal rights,” Shipp v. Todd, 568 F.2d 133, 134 (9th Cir. 1978) 
(quoting United States v. McMains, 540 F.2d 387, 389 (8th Cir. 1976)), such as when the 
conviction was obtained unconstitutionally or because of government misconduct. See Allen, 742 
F.2d at 154. 
Ten years after the decision in Allen v. Webster, the Supreme Court of the United States 
decided Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), narrowing a court’s 
equitable discretion to exercise “ancillary jurisdiction” to two circumstances: “(1) to permit 
disposition by a single court of claims that are, in varying respects and degrees, factually 
interdependent; and (2) to enable a court to function successfully, that is, to manage its 
proceedings, vindicate its authority, and effectuate its decrees.” Id. at 379-80. Since Kokkonen 
was decided, courts around the country have ruled that a district court lacks discretion to grant 
expungement on equitable grounds. See, e.g., United States v. Lucido, 612 F.3d 871, 875-76 (6th 
Cir. 2010); Doe v. United States, 833 F.3d 192, 198 (2d Cir. 2016). The Fourth Circuit has done 
so as well, albeit in an unpublished decision. See United States v. Mettetal , 714 F. App’x. 230, 
234-35 (4th Cir. 2017). In Mettetal, the Fourth Circuit noted the growing trend among the circuits 
concluding that Kokkonen “outright bars federal courts from invoking ancillary jurisdiction to 
expunge criminal records for purely equitable reasons.” Id. at 234 (quoting, among others, United 
States v. Dunegan, 251 F.3d 477, 479 (3rd Cir. 2001)). See also United States v. McMiller, Case 
No. 5:06-CR-00007, 2023 WL 7027973 (W.D. Va. Oct. 25, 2023). 
 Mr. Hardie’s progress does not meet the extrao rdinarily high bar set prior to Kokkonen. 
Mr. Hardie pleaded guilty to the crime and completed his sentence, which he does not contest as 

being unlawful in any way. While the C ourt acknowledges his desire to pursue opportunities in 
his business, no exceptional circumstances exist supporting expungement, and the Court lacks 
discretion in any event. 
Accordingly, it is this 1st day of June, 2026, by the United States District Court for the 
District of Maryland hereby ORDERED that: 
1. The motion for expungement BE, and the same hereby IS, DENIED; and 
2. The Clerk will mail a copy of this Memorandum and Order to Hardie at his last 
 known address. 
 
 
Dated: June 1, 2026 /S/ 
 Paula Xinis 
 United States District Judge 
 
 

Passage view · GavelSight