The federal courts were established as an independent third branch of government by Article III of the Constitution, which provides for a Supreme Court ans “such inferior courts” as Congress deems necessary. Congress established federal district and circuit courts with the Judiciary Act of 1789. A major reform of the system occurred in 1891 with the Circuit Court Act, which established a permanent appellate court for each circuit. Today, the 94 federal district courts are grouped into 12 circuits, each with its own court of appeals.

The administrative head of each circuit is the chief judge of the court of appeals, who achieves this position by seniority. The judicial councils of the circuits, which include active judges of both the courts of appeals and district courts, are charged with administrative responsibility for the circuit as a whole, headed by a chief judge. The chief judge of each circuit and an elected district judge represent the circuit at the semi-annual Judicial Conference of the United States. This body, chaired by the Chief Justice of the United States, is convened for the purpose of determining policy in administrative matters. In addition, the Conference directs the housekeeping arm of the federal judiciary, the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, and advises the legislative and executive branches on matters affecting the judiciary. The Federal Judicial Center, which is governed by a national board of which the Chief Justice is chairman, is the research and training arm of the federal judiciary.

The United States Courts for the Second Circuit exercise federal jurisdiction within the states of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont. The Court of Appeals sits in New York City. The six districts (the state of New York is divided into the Eastern, Northern, Southern and Western Districts) each have a district court and a bankruptcy court, and sit in the locations shown on the map on page 5A. As of May 1, 2005, the Court of Appeals has 13 active judges in 13 judgeships, 10 senior judges (nominally retired judges, most of whom carry heavy caseloads). The district courts have a total of 59 active judges, 41 senior judges, 47 magistrate judges and 27 bankruptcy judges. There were three district judgeship vacancies.

JUDICIAL BUSINESS OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

PLACES OF HOLDING COURT

Southern District of New York	Manhattan White Plains Middletown Poughkeepsie
Eastern District of New York	Brooklyn Central Islip
Northern District of New York	Binghamton Albany Utica Syracuse Auburn Watertown
Western District of New York	Rochester Buffalo
District of Connecticut	Bridgeport New Haven Waterbury Hartford
District of Vermont	Brattleboro Rutland Burlington

CHIEF JUDGES’ REPORTS OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Chief Judge John M. Walker, Jr.

In August of 2003, our Court suffered an enormous loss with the unexpected death of Circuit Judge Fred I. Parker of Vermont. Judge Parker or “FIP”, as he was affectionately known to his circuit court colleagues, was a member of our Court for almost ten years. On July 7, 2004, FIP’s seat was filled by Peter W. Hall, the United States Attorney for Vermont. Judge Hall, or “PWH,” as he is now known to his colleagues served as the United States Attorney from 2001 until his appointment to our Court. A graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Cornell Law School, Judge Hall clerked for Vermont District Judge Albert W. Coffrin following his graduation from law school and now occupies the same chambers in which he worked as a law clerk to Judge Coffrin. On October 25th, I had the pleasure and privilege of presiding at Judge Hall’s public induction held at the United States Courthouse and Federal Building in Burlington, Vermont. Judge Hall’s appointment to our Court completes our complement of thirteen active circuit judges. We welcome Judge Hall to our Court and look forward to many years of serving together.

On November 20, 2004, Senior Circuit Judge Ellsworth Van Graafeiland died at the age of 89, one month short of his thirtieth anniversary on our Court. Judge Van Graafeiland, or “Van” to his family, friends and colleagues served with great distinction on our Court, writing hundreds of opinions, carefully crafted and hewing to the belief that the judge’s limited, but important role is to interpret the law as he finds it. Although many considered Van a “law and order” judge, this reputation belies the true nature of a judge who was most firm when his keen sense of justice told him that a defendant had been unjustly treated. An example of this is in a case from one of the last three-judge panels on which he sat. Van was initially the only judge to believe that a criminal defendant was sentenced erroneously based on his co-conspirator’s conduct. Personally agitated by this perceived sense of injustice, Van began drafting a dissent. Ultimately, however, through an exchange of memoranda with his two colleagues, his dissent ultimately became the basis for a unanimous opinion.

The name Van Graafeiland evokes memories of New York State’s original Dutch settlers who became the members of New York’s landed aristocracy in its northern counties and along the Hudson Valley. Those who assume that Van was descended from these elites could not be more mistaken. To the contrary, Van came to the law from a Depression-era childhood of disadvantaged circumstances. As a child, he suffered a disability, scoliosis, which caused him to spend five years in a full body cast. The silver lining, however, was that Van developed a life-long love of reading. A graduate of Cornell University Law School, he joined the Rochester, New York law firm of Wiser, Shaw, Freeman, Van Graafeiland, Harter and Secrest (now Harter Secrest & Emery) where he practiced law until then New York Senator James L. Buckley tapped him to fill the vacancy created when Judge Henry J. Friendly assumed senior status. At the time President Gerald R. Ford nominated him to our Court, Van was the immediate Past-President of the New York State Bar Association, having previously served as its Vice-President, as well as a past President of the Monroe County Bar Association. Van’s rise from these humble beginnings to the pinnacle of his chosen profession exemplifies the meritocracy of the American bar.

Although Van enjoyed an almost folkloric reputation for irascibility on the bench and for his occasionally sharply worded dissenting opinions (he wrote about one hundred dissenting opinions in his thirty years on our Court), his character was marked by humility. Van called Judge Friendly “the last great judge” of the Second Circuit. When interviewed as part of the Court’s oral history project, Van told the interviewer, “I’m walking in his footsteps, but I’m not filling his boots. I can claim to be an ordinary run of the mill judge who does the best he can, that’s all.” This statement is a characteristic understatement by someone who was far from “a run of the mill” jurist. Van was not a member of the social aristocracy of Dutch origin, but he was a brilliant specimen of the legal and judicial aristocracy that De Toqueville extolled in his writings in the first half of the nineteenth century and which we continue to celebrate today. As I write this report, I, together with my colleagues, feel a poignant sense of loss at Van’s passing. All of us will remember Van with affection, admiration and profound respect. We extend our deepest sympathies to Van’s wife, Rhodie, and their children, Gary, Anne, Suzanne, Joan, and Jack.

In 2004, our Court continued to struggle under a crushing burden of immigration appeals. These cases come to the federal courts through the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). An alien who loses their appeal from an adverse decision of the BIA, following a decision rendered by an immigration judge, must file directly in a federal court of appeals. In FY 2001, 170 BIA appeals were filed with our Court. Over the last three years, our Court has witnessed a steady increase in these cases until it reached 2,632 in FY 2004, a 1,448% increase.

Initially, we believed this onslaught of appeals was the result of a concerted effort by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to eliminate an enormous backlog of cases before the BIA. While the INS enforcement functions were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security, the INS adjudicative functions remained with the DOJ. From 2002 to 2003, filings of appeals of BIA decisions nationwide climbed 153% from 2001 to 2002 and 99% from 2002 to 2003. Due to venue provisions in the immigration law, most of these increases were felt in the Second and Ninth Circuits. The appeals finding their way to our Court are generally asylum cases filed by people claiming relief from oppression in their native countries. More specifically, approximately 75% of the immigration appeals pending in the Second Circuit are filed by Chinese appellants claiming asylum based on their homeland’s family planning policies. Despite expectations that most of these cases would be predominately pro se, in 80% of the cases the petitioner is represented by legal counsel. The Court is reviewing its longstanding practices as it undertakes to cope with the immigration backlog and is exploring innovative ways to deal with the problem.

At the same time, our Court’s caseload continued to rise, increasing 10.2% from the prior fiscal year (the twelve-month period from October 1st to September 30th) or from 6,359 appeals filed in FY 2003 to 7,008 cases filed in FY 2004. To handle this severe caseload increase, our Court held 8 double panels during this Term and scheduled three triple-panel week sittings. While our present information as to the number and timing of additional cases ready for calendaring is imperfect, our goal is to try to build in as much flexibility as possible to deal with this caseload challenge over the next Term of our Court.

In 2004, each active judge sat for forty days which translates into about 250 appeals. In addition, our judges heard numerous motions both counseled and pro se. As in previous years, about 80% of our panels were comprised entirely of our own circuit judges and, although we continued our tradition of including visiting judges, we relied primarily on visitors from within the Circuit. Once again, enjoying a nearly full complement of judges for most of 2004 allowed us to schedule sittings that maximized opportunities for our judges to work closely with one another, thereby improving collegiality and building levels of trust and respect that are at the heart of good appellate decision-making.

In 2004, our Court marked the fiftieth anniversary of Brown v. Board of Education, by sponsoring, “Marching Toward Justice,” an exhibition on the history of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This exhibit, which we co-sponsored with Cardozo Law School, was set up for several months this year in the Main Lobby of our magnificent building at 40 Foley Square in Manhattan, which is named for the late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who successfully argued Brown before the United States Supreme Court.

On May 21, 2005, Senior Circuit Judge Amalya L. Kearse celebrated her twenty-fifth anniversary on the bench. Judge Kearse was appointed to our Court in 1979 when Congress created two additional new judgeships for our Court.

Notwithstanding rising caseloads in the federal courts nationwide, Congressional funding appropriations to the Third Branch over the past several fiscal years have been insufficient to sustain the judiciary’s operations much less provide for much needed increases. In FY 2004, the federal judiciary, as a whole, lost the services of 1,350 employees, the only branch of government so effected by budget constraints. The departure of so many court personnel came at a time of increasing workloads, rising rental payments to the General Services Administration (“GSA”) and the increased cost of providing necessary judicial services to the public and the bar.

This year, our Court also felt the impact of the judiciary’s budgetary difficulties. As a consequence, we were forced to close our independent Office of Public Affairs forcing us to let go our Assistant Circuit Executive for Public Affairs, Stephen Young. During his three-year tenure, Stephen raised the public profile of our Court and our Circuit by expanding our community outreach program, reviving our Court’s oral history program and documenting the experiences of our Court and our Circuit in the days following the tragic events of September 11, 2001. We thank Stephen for his service to our Court and our Circuit and wish him well in his new endeavors. Also, in recognition of our constrained fiscal circumstances, we cancelled our scheduled judges-only Circuit-wide judicial conference and our Court held its 2004 Court Retreat on site in the Judges Conference Center at the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse.

On October 22, 2004, Senior Circuit Judge Wilfred Feinberg became the 22nd recipient of the Edward J. Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award of the American Judicature Society in recognition of his outstanding legal scholarship and contributions to jurisprudence. Bill Feinberg is the first judge of our Court to receive this prestigious award. Joined on the bench by Circuit Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Southern District Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, our Court sat in special session in the ceremonial courtroom of the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse in lower Manhattan. Speakers included Justice Ginsburg, Chief Judge Mukasey, Larry Hammond, President of the American Judicature Society, New York University School of Law Dean Richard Revez and Southern District Judge Gerard Lynch, two of Bill’s former law clerks and yours truly. Sixth Circuit Judge Julia Gibbons, a member of the selection committee, formally presented the Devitt Award to Bill.

First appointed to the Southern District bench in 1961 by President John F. Kennedy, Bill joined our Court on March 18, 1966. Throughout his almost forty-year judicial career, Bill made extensive contributions both to the jurisprudence of our Circuit by his thoughtful and well-crafted opinions and to the administration of justice in the federal courts by his service as Chief Circuit Judge from 1980 to 1988, as a member of the Judicial Conference of the United States, the national policy-making body of the federal judiciary, and many of its committees. The October ceremony was a fitting celebration of a remarkable jurist whose brilliant career has been characterized by his unassuming and humble approach to his craft and his colleagues. We happily extend our most heartfelt congratulations to Bill, his wonderful wife Shirley and their family on the occasion of Bill’s receipt of the Devitt Distinguished Service to Justice Award.

For the past three years, I have been reporting on the progress of our efforts to remedy the major infrastructure and architectural problems of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse. I am pleased to report that Congress has approved GSA’s FY 2005 request for $16.5 million in design monies for our prospectus project to upgrade the infrastructure of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, providing the “green light” for GSA and the courts to proceed to undertake a prospectus project to upgrade and replace the building’s heating, air conditioning, electrical and plumbing systems. Our joint project committee, co-chaired by Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker, Jr. and Southern District Judge Barbara S. Jones, have been hard at work with the Circuit and District Executives and their staffs and members of GSA Region 2 to select an architectural and engineering firm to design our project and a construction management firm to provide quality oversight.

Our project is off to a good start with the selection of the pre-eminent New York City-based architectural firm of Beyer Blinder Belle in joint venture with architects Davis Brody Bond and engineers from Flack & Kurtz as the project’s designers. Beyer Blinder Belle partner John Belle, who will oversee the design team for our project, was the principle architect for the renovation and restoration of historic Grand Central Terminal and Ellis Island, among other high profile projects. Bovis Lend Lease, whose construction work is visible throughout New York City, including the Brooklyn district courthouse construction project and renovation of the Beaux Arts General Post Office Building, was selected as the Construction Manager for our project. As this calendar year draws to a close, our “space” judges and Court staff are working hard to prepare both the Court of Appeals and the Southern District to vacate the courthouse in Summer 2006, just prior to the beginning of the project’s construction phase. Both courts will remain out of the courthouse until completion of the project in 2010. Undertaking a project of this magnitude is requiring an enormous sacrifice by the judges and staff of these two courts for many years, but it is essential that the aging infrastructure of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse be replaced with new modern systems that can support court operations well into the twenty-first century.

Our success in this almost three-year endeavor was thanks to the steadfast assistance of Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (“AO”) and his Assistant Director for Security and Facilities Ross Eisenman, who helped us develop a viable prospectus project which respected costs without sacrificing the scope of the much-needed infrastructure upgrade. We also thank GSA Administrator Stephen Perry, Public Buildings Commissioner Joseph Moravec and their staffs and GSA Region 2 Administrator Eileen Long-Chelales and her staff for their continued support in helping us make this project a reality.

In closing, I am pleased to report that the news from the Court of Appeals is good and continues to improve. Even as our Court experiences a greater number of filings, we continue our tradition of scholarship, collegiality and respectful dissent. While our median disposition time has lengthened due to an increased caseload without an increase in judges, I fully expect that it will be reduced in the new year as we adopt more efficient practices. The important administrative issues that confront this Court and the federal judiciary as a whole remain unchanged. Although judicial vacancies are being filled, rising caseloads and shrinking budgets are creating challenges for our Court that must be dealt with in the near future. Thanks to our thirteen active and ten senior judges, I am confident that we will carry into the future the Second Circuit’s proud traditions of craft in decision-making and expeditious docket management.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

[PHOTO UNAVAILABLE]

Chief Judge Robert N. Chatigny

On November 1, 2004, the Honorable Dominic J. Squatrito took senior status. Judge Squatrito was appointed to the bench by President Clinton on October 6, 1994. He intends to continue to maintain a courtroom and chambers in the Hartford courthouse.

On January 12, 2004, the Honorable Robert C. Zampano, a major figure in the history of the District of Connecticut, passed away in New Haven at the age of 75. Judge Zampano was appointed to the bench by President Johnson in 1964. Following his retirement in 1994, after nearly 30 years of judicial service, he continued to serve the Court as a special master. A memorial service honoring Judge Zampano was conducted at the New Haven Courthouse on May 14, 2004.

On July 24, 2004, the Honorable Warren W. Eginton celebrated his 25^th anniversary on the bench. Judge Eginton continues to maintain chambers in the Bridgeport courthouse and often sits as a visiting judge in other Districts.

The District continues to benefit tremendously from the contributions of its senior judges. In addition to Judge Eginton and Judge Squatrito, the Court is served by the Honorable Ellen Bree Burns, the Honorable Peter C. Dorsey, and the Honorable Alan H. Nevas and Honorable Alfred V. Covello.

On May 28, 2004, the Honorable Gerard L. Goettel of the Southern District of New York, who sat by designation in Connecticut on a full-time basis, took inactive status. Judge Goettel carried a full assignment of civil cases in Connecticut for 10 years.

On July 19, 2004, Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel was appointed to a second eight-year term commencing November 22, 2004. The Court’s merit selection committee enthusiastically recommended that Judge Garfinkel be reappointed and took particular note of his outstanding work as a mediator.

Case Statistics

In 2004, the District Court opened 2,320 civil cases and 2,413 civil cases were closed. At year-end, 3,061 civil cases were pending.

The Court opened 305 criminal cases involving 501 defendants and disposed of 255 cases involving a total of 381 defendants. At the end of the year, 736 defendants had charges pending.

Clerk’s Office Awards Ceremony

The annual awards ceremony honoring members of the Clerk’s Office was held in the Hartford Courthouse on April 2, 2004. Cheryl Conte, Judith Fazekas, Peter Milner, Regina McDaniel-Martin, Darlene Warner, Carol Sanders and Melissa Ruocco received 5-year service pins; Janet Barrille, Marion Bock, Cynthia Earle, Dinah Milton-Kinney, Corinne Pike, and Donna Thomas received 10-year service pins; Susanne D’Andrea, Thea Finklestein, Martha Marshall, Barbara Sbabli, Betty Torday, and Robert Wood received 15-year service pins; Frank DePino, Diane Kolesnikoff and Susan Lamoureaux received 20-year service pins; Barbara Stokes and Cassandra Warren received 25-year service pins; and Kevin Rowe received a 30-year service pin. Government Service awards were given to Kathleen Falcone and Paul Seabrooke, who received a 10-year certificate, Mary Wiggins, who received a 30-year certificate and Maria Carpenter, who received a 35-year certificate.

Training

Members of the Clerk’s Office, Bankruptcy Clerk’s Office, the Probation Office and Federal Public Defenders Office participated in a FAS4T training program conducted by Administrative Office.

The Clerk’s Office continued its CM/ECF training program for members of the bar and their support staff.

Members of the Court family attended a security briefing conducted by the U.S. Marshal’s Office and FBI related to handling suspicious packages, phone threats, and bomb scares.

In January 2004, members of the Court’s integrated technology staff attended Dream Weaver/Cold Fusion training conducted by an outside vendor.

In September, the Court unit executives attended Certifying Officer training conducted by the Administrative Office in Providence, Rhode Island.

Automation

The Court implemented FAS4T on July 1, 2004 and went live on certifying officer on January 1, 2005.

ACE Communications installed a digital evidence presentation system at each seat of court during June, August and October 2004.

Construction Projects

In December 2004, GSA completed construction of a new courtroom on the third floor of the New Haven Courthouse. This courtroom will be used primarily by Magistrate Judge Joan G. Margolis. This new courtroom relieved the courtroom shortage that plagued the New Haven Courthouse for a number of years.

GSA provided the Court with preliminary drawings for the new jury assembly room on the second floor of the Hartford Courthouse which the Court approved in August. In December, GSA confirmed that they would pay the entire cost of this project.

PROBATION OFFICE

The budget crisis was once again the major event of the year, as it influenced every decision from purchases to hiring. The second most important event in 2004 was the implementation of FAS4T. Training and implementation took the entire year and included hours of training and some significant changes in financial processes and record keeping.

Staffing

The budget crisis had a huge impact on our staffing. At the start of fiscal year 2004, the Probation Office staff consisted of 57 individuals filling 56.2 full time positions. We had two pending officer appointments on September 30th. These officers came on board the first week of FY 2004, bringing our total staffing to 59. Then, in November, Deputy Chief James R. LeBlanc passed away suddenly and unexpectedly. This was devastating for staff. Because of the looming budget crisis, it was decided to leave the position vacant for at least the remainder of the year. The position categories were as follows, one chief and one assistant deputy, three supervising probation officers and 33 line probation officers, 19 administrative and clerical support and two automation support. Our statistical workload justified 67.94 positions, thus suggesting we were still understaffed by eight positions. Within months “cost containment” became the buzz word and we were informed that the staffing formulas were going to be refreshed and that there would also be an across the board staffing reduction. We were eventually informed that our authorized staffing for 2005 would be decreased to 62.5 but only 59.3 positions would be funded. We were fortunate and did not have to resort to involuntary staff reductions because, in addition to loss of my deputy, two probation officers voluntarily resigned before the end of the year and two clerks accepted buyouts. This loss of five employees brought our total staffing to 55, filling 54 full time positions, approximately 88% of the reduced staffing formula.

The District of CT recognizes the need for a diverse staff. The hiring practices of the Probation Office reflect our Court’s policy with the two largest minority groups, Blacks and Hispanics represented in our professional and support staff. Our officer and administrative professional staff are just about evenly divided by gender.

Training

Although training continues to be a priority in the Probation Office, we reduced travel and costly training because fo the budget crisis. In FY 2004, a significant number of training hours were devoted to the implementation of FAS4T. The implementation team spent a week in Washington in February, then there were regular training and many meetings up through implementation in July 2004. We also sent two individuals to Contracting Officer training in New York in April 2004. Other in-service training provided during the year included, Ethics training; Officer Safety, including a three day Defensive Tactics program and certification for the use of capstun; a one day writing skills program; certification in Choice Point Searches; a one day training on the new presentence monograph; a one day training on supervision practices; and Sentencing Guidelines. It should also be noted that the new officers participated in a 30 day orientation and training program in October 2003 and ongoing in-services training throughout the year. They attended the new officers’ orientation in Washington, D.C. in June 2004. We take advantage of training offered by other agencies, especially those that cost little to nothing and do not require travel outside the District. Staff also has access to the FJTN at all three locations. They are provided a schedule and encouraged to view relevant programs of interest. Excluding training for FAS4T and FJTN training, probation office staff participated in well over 1000 hours of training.

Pretrial

In 2004, the D/CT experienced a slight increase in the workload. We activated 549 pretrial cases; a 17% increase above FY 2003. Officers attended 903 hearings. According to the AO statistical reports, 27 violations were reported to the Court, with three of them resulting on bond revocations. These statistics are not accurate. In collecting this information we discovered an error in data entry. We should see more accurate violation data in the next report.

In FY 2004, our detention rate and the number of defendants on supervision increased. Of the 541 initial presentments, 61% were detained. Our supervision caseload increased from 262 in FY 2003 to 318 at the end of FY 2004.

Substance Abuse and mental health treatment were provided to approximately 196 defendants in 2004, more than double the number who received treatment in FY 2003. The total cost of treatment for all defendants was $257,946. Approximately 106 defendants were released on home confinement during pretrial supervision. The cost for home confinement was $41,473. Approximately 28% of all pretrial services costs were covered by co-payments from defendants, private insurance or State health insurance programs. Co-payments totaled $80,489, reducing the cost to the Probation Office to $214,930. Our total cost for Alternatives to Detention increased by 40%, reflecting an increase in the use of alternatives to detention. But our collection of co-payments also increased by 3%.

Probation

The Probation Office completed 361 Presentence Investigations 2004, down 16% from the prior year. They expected this decrease. Rather than a decrease in prosecutions, the number reflects the final disposition of a number of cases that had been pending for several years.

We supervised 879 offenders in the community, nearly equal to the prior year. The vast majority of our supervision cases are on supervised release or probation. The various types of parole cases make up less than 1% of all supervision cases. Of all supervision cases, nearly 100% have one or more special conditions that include community confinement, fines or restitution, substance abuse or mental health treatment.

Expenditures for substance abuse treatment totaled $238,441. Our actual expenditures for treatment were reduced by client and insurance co-payments, totaling $77,726, reducing the actual costs to the Government to $160,716. Mental health treatment costs totaled $50,918. Co-payments totaled $5,571, reducing costs to the Probation Office to $45,347.

During FY 2004 55 post-conviction offenders were placed on home confinement. Costs for these services were $37,207. Offender co-payments collected totaled $19,187, reducing the cost to the Probation Office by one half, to $18,019.

The total cost for all treatment and alternatives to detention was $625,987. Co-payments collected totaled $186,074 reducing our actual costs for all services to $439,013.

The Probation Office is also a key player in monitoring the collection of fines and restitution. Per AO requests, we are working with the Clerk’s Office to gradually reduce the number of collected payments coming through the Probation Office. During fiscal year 2004 the Probation office recorded collections of $56,755.30 in fines, $24,914.10 in Cost of Probation (fines), $356,874.70 in restitution and $3,180 in Special Assessments, for a total of $441,724.10.

Planned Events in 2005:

A major undertaking for 2005 is to hire and train new officers. We also plan to focus on improving our statistical reports.

Annual Report 2004

United States Bankruptcy Court for the

District of Connecticut

The Bankruptcy Court maintains three Divisions – Hartford, New Haven and Bridgeport – served by three judges. In addition, the Court remains the beneficiary of the service of recalled judge, Robert L. Krechevsky, who handles the full Hartford Division caseload.

During calendar year 2004, Bankruptcy Court cases totaled 11,257 new filings, with an additional 230 cases reopened. Chapter 7 filings declined 6.22% to 9228; Chapter 11 filings declined 17.17% to 82; and Chapter 13 filings declined 6.21% to 1947. In addition, 356 new adversary proceedings were opened, 430 were closed, with 500 pending at the year end. The Bankruptcy Court continued to train and prepare for commencement of mandatory Electronic Case Filing, scheduled for full implementation on August 1, 2005.

Also during 2004, the Bankruptcy Court launched Connecticut’s CARE Program, under which judges and attorneys visit area high schools to speak to Junior and Senior Year students about the dangers of overspending and credit abuse. During 2004, the Court obtained a CARE Program endorsement from the Connecticut Association of Public School Superintendents, conducted training programs, and with the generous assistance of approximately 30 members of the Connecticut Bar, commenced numerous visits to Connecticut’s High schools.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Chief Judge Edward R. Korman

The population of the Eastern District of New York, which is one of the most populous judicial districts in the United States, increased over the last decade by more than 8 percent, to 7.9 million. The 2000 Census indicated that much of that growth took place in the three counties of the City of New York that are part of the Eastern District of New York and in Suffolk County. A more recent update indicates that the population now exceeds 8 million, or approximately 42 percent of the total population of the State of New York. The continued population growth, along with other factors, is responsible for the huge caseload borne by the judges of the Eastern District.

District Judge Appointments

Two longstanding Article III vacancies were filled in 2004 with the appointments of Dora L. Irizarry on July 8, 2004, and Sandra L. Townes on August 2, 2004. Judge Irizarry fills the vacancy created by the appointment of Judge Reena Raggi to the Court of Appeals. Judge Irizarry most recently served as an acting Justice of the Supreme Court, both in Kings County and New York County. She is also the first member of the Hispanic community, which comprises such a significant part of the Eastern District, to be appointed. Judge Townes fills the vacancy created when Judge Sterling Johnson, Jr. took senior status. Prior to her appointment, Judge Townes was elected a Justice of the N.Y. State Supreme Court in 1999 and was appointed an Associate Justice of the Appellate Division, Second Department, in 2001. She also has served as a Judge of the City Court of Syracuse and as Chief Assistant District Attorney of Onondaga County.

Senior Status

Two District Judges took senior status in 2004. Judge Arthur D. Spatt took senior status on December 1, 2004. Judge Spatt was appointed in November, 1989 and sits at the Long Island Courthouse. Judge Denis R. Hurley took senior status on December 18, 2004. Judge Hurley was appointed in November, 1991, and also sits at the Long Island Courthouse. Both Judge Spatt and Judge Hurley continue to carry a full caseload. The vacancies created when Judges Spatt and Hurley took senior status have not been filled.

Caseload Profile

The Eastern District’s judicial caseload profile remained high in statistical year 2004, which ended September 30, 2004, but civil case filings declined. Weighted filings per judgeship were 536. The Eastern District of New York is second within the Second Circuit in weighted filings, and above the national average of 529. Several other rankings of actions per judgeship remain high, including total filings (490), civil filings (397), pending cases (635), terminations (543), and trials completed (23), which is first within the Second Circuit. All statistics are based upon fifteen active judgeship positions.

On September 30, 2004, total pending actions were 9,529, total terminated cases were 8,149, and total filings for the twelve-month period were 7,351. Total filings declined by 12.2 percent in the reporting period, with almost all of this change due to an 11.7 percent decline in civil case filings. Still among the highest in the country, this workload could not have been managed without the extraordinary assistance rendered by our senior judges. Eight of the twenty-one judges in the Eastern District are senior judges. Substantial assistance was also received from visiting judges. A total of 155 trial and non-trial bench hours were logged by seven visiting judges who presided over seven trials. A number of settlements also resulted from their efforts.

The Judiciary Budget

The Judicial Branch continues to experience a significant budget crunch. The results of this funding shortfall are felt throughout the judicial system, most particularly in the district courts, their Clerk’s Offices and other court agencies. In NY-E, the Clerk’s Office, both District and Bankruptcy, Pretrial Services and the Probation Service have been affected by the current budget crisis. A declining civil caseload which reduces work measurement credits further complicates and worsens the salary fund shortfall. The Clerk’s Office started a second consecutive year, in FY 2004, with a substantial shortfall in the payroll account of approximately half a million dollars. As recently as July, 2003, the Clerk’s Office employed 162 permanent staff positions. Presently, the Clerk’s Office is down to 140 positions, not including the Clerk of Court. There is a continuing hiring freeze on all replacement staff needs. The position of Chief Deputy which became vacant in February, 2005 has been filled in an acting capacity only for the current fiscal year to conserve salary funds needed for all staff. The balance of the payroll shortfall will be covered by filling a vacant personnel officer position from current staff; and by funding transfers from our already significantly reduced automation and general accounts. Court staff have been reduced to the lowest possible level, creating coverage issues on a routine basis. Any further reduction in staff likely will diminish services to the bench, bar and public and possibly reduce public access hours.

Brooklyn Courthouse

The Courthouse construction projects are scheduled to be completed by GSA before the end of 2005, if the latest GSA projection can be credited. At present, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court is scheduled to move to the renovated Brooklyn GPO in late July, 2005. The new Brooklyn Courthouse is scheduled to be completed by October, 2005, with an estimated relocation date for the District Court of December, 2005. The projected dates are four years behind schedule. The unhappy history of these two delayed construction projects is described below.

The construction of a new Brooklyn courthouse began with a groundbreaking ceremony on February 7, 2000. The project is way behind schedule. A second building project, the renovation of the Brooklyn Post Office, a part of which will be occupied by the Bankruptcy Court, is also behind schedule. The Brooklyn Courthouse Project has been troubled from the very beginning by the manner in which GSA managed the budget and contracting process. GSA’s failure to recognize and act decisively in an escalating construction market resulted in a series of redesign efforts that took the project from an eighteen-story building to the fourteen-story building now under construction. The February, 1998 bid on the eighteen-story building was only seven million dollars over budget. Unaware of the amount of available funds, and unwilling to negotiate the difference, GSA ignored the advice of its consultants and insisted that the size of the project be scaled down to fourteen stories at a redesign cost of 2.7 million dollars. The final bid on the fourteen-story building which GSA accepted in September, 1999, was twenty-one million dollars over budget.

The fourteen-story building now under construction is capable of housing sixteen district courtrooms and chambers and eight U.S. magistrates courtrooms and chambers, barely enough for the present complement of judges and magistrates sitting in Brooklyn. Nevertheless, GSA proposed to build out only twelve district courtrooms and chambers and four courtrooms and chambers for U.S. magistrate judges. Since GSA demolished an otherwise useful office building adjoining the present courthouse, which contained four courtrooms and which would have cost tens of millions of dollars to construct, the project as contemplated by GSA would have resulted in a net increase of eight district courtrooms and four magistrates courtrooms at a cost of 208.57 million dollars.

This shortsighted plan would also have ultimately cost the taxpayers far more money in years to come when the combined facilities in the present courthouse (with ten district courtrooms) run out of space. Moreover, it has delayed and made more expensive the long-planned renovation of the present courthouse, because it will have to have been accomplished while the building was occupied.

Our concerted efforts succeeded in reversing the proposal of GSA to construct a fourteen-story building of which a third would have been an empty shell. The Omnibus Appropriation Bill for FY 2003 appropriated the additional 39.5 million dollars needed to build out the remaining eight courtrooms and chambers in the new Brooklyn Courthouse. Our efforts, which overcame the lack of support from GSA, were assisted by the Brooklyn/Queens/Staten Island delegation in the House of Representatives, especially Representative Jerrold L. Nadler, and by Senator Hillary Clinton who is a member of the Senate Public Works Committee. Nevertheless, the overall project is 28 million dollars over budget. The General Services Administration identified sufficient funds for re-programming from other available funds. GSA eventually received OMB approval for the administrative transfer of these funds.

The projects, District and Bankruptcy, were yet again delayed due to the bankruptcy of the general contractor, JA Jones Construction. The General Contractor’s surety company, Fireman’s Fund, accepted their liability and entered into an agreement with Bovis Lend Lease to complete both projects. Again, the new estimated completion dates (although not official) are July, 2005 for the Bankruptcy Court, and October, 2005 for the District Court.

GSA has spent all of the $39.5 million appropriated for our eight additional courtrooms and chambers just to keep the project going. It received an additional $74.7 million in reprogramming authority in May of 2003 to complete both projects. The source of that money was the $65 million Congress appropriated for the Repair and Alteration project on the existing Courthouse, and $9 million from other sources. GSA has now again asked Congress for Repair and Alteration money for the existing Courthouse in the amount of $91 million in the 2006 budget. The extensive delays encountered in completing the new Brooklyn Courthouse required a re-evaluation of the longstanding plans for the renovation of the existing courthouse. The plan first designed ten years ago called for vacating the existing courthouse entirely to enable a long overdue and needed repair. While the construction project lagged, judicial staff increased. We now will have to retain three full floors in the existing courthouse after completion and occupancy of the new courthouse. The entire Repair and Alteration project will have to be re-designed as to scope, feasibility and cost.

Both projects are tens of millions of dollars over budget and four years behind schedule. Indeed, we estimate that at least $100 million of taxpayer dollars have been squandered by GSA. A number of GSA’s estimated occupancy dates have come and gone. There is now–finally–some reason to believe that the current projected completion dates are realistic. The only positive aspect of this mess is that the current Administrator of GSA, Stephen Perry, has taken a personal role in the project and has removed responsibility for it from Region II. We are grateful to him for his efforts to complete the project.

United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Eastern District of New York

Bankruptcy Court case filings in fiscal year 2004 increased by 4.2 percent. Total case filings were 26,802. Chapter 7 filings increased by 8.7 percent, to 21,586. In contrast, Chapter 11 filings decreased from 209 to 163, and Chapter 13 filings decreased from 5,667 to 5,053. In addition, 1,269 adversary proceedings were opened, 3,962 motions to lift stays were filed, and there were 20,423 discharges in Bankruptcy. A total of 32,746 cases were closed.

The Board of Judges honored the outstanding judicial service of Chief Bankruptcy Judge Conrad B. Duberstein with a dedication ceremony on February 10, 2005 naming the U.S. Bankruptcy Courtrooms and Chambers in the renovated General Post Office Building, scheduled for opening in July, 2005, for Judge Duberstein. The full text of the plaque which will be displayed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Courthouse appears below:

“Chief Judge Conrad B. Duberstein

United States Bankruptcy Judge, Appointed April 1, 1981

Chief Judge of the Bankruptcy Court, Appointed August 8, 1984

These courtrooms and chambers are dedicated to honor Conrad B. Duberstein for his extraordinary public service, with the sincere appreciation of his friends, colleagues and the Judges of the Eastern District of New York.

Admitted to the bar of the State of New York on March 9, 1942, after graduating from St. John’s University School of Law, Conrad B. Duberstein became one of the nation’s foremost experts in bankruptcy law, with the country’s only bankruptcy moot court competition named in his honor. He was appointed as a Bankruptcy Judge on April 1, 1981 and has served as Chief Judge for more than twenty-one years. He was awarded the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star Medal and the Combat Infantry Badge for his service in World War II. He has truly earned the respect of the legal community, the affection of his colleagues and a well-deserved reputation for intelligence, wit, humility and compassion.

The dedication of these courtrooms and chambers honors Chief Judge Duberstein’s unwavering commitment to the fair administration of bankruptcy jurisprudence and the preservation of the dignity of those in financial distress.”

The Magistrate Judges

Our magistrate judges are assigned the full range of civil and criminal case responsibilities authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 656. Magistrate judges were referred a total of 6,084 pending civil cases in fiscal year as of September 30, 2004 for pretrial preparation. Criminal case assignments include detention hearings, acceptance of guilty pleas, jury selections, and pretrial hearings. Civil trials, on consent of the parties, and misdemeanor criminal trials remain a significant responsibility of the district’s magistrate judges.

The Board of Judges on November 29, 2004 dedicated the Arraignment Courtroom in the new Brooklyn Courthouse, scheduled for opening in December, 2005, in honor of Judge A. Simon Chrein, United States Magistrate Judge, for his almost thirty years of service to the Eastern District as a magistrate judge. The text of the plaque which will be installed outside the new arraignment courtroom appears below:

“THE A. SIMON CHREIN ARRAIGNMENT COURTROOM

United States Magistrate Judge, Appointed May 14, 1976

Attorney-in-Charge, Federal Defender's Office 1968-1976

This courtroom is dedicated in honor of the extraordinary public service of the Honorable A. Simon Chrein, with the sincere appreciation of his friends and colleagues, the Judges of the Eastern District of New York.

After serving for nearly a decade as the Attorney in Charge of our Court’s Federal Defender Office, A. Simon Chrein was appointed a Magistrate Judge on May 14, 1976, and served as Chief Magistrate Judge for fifteen years. He has earned the respect of the legal community, the affection of his colleagues, and a well-deserved reputation for intelligence, wit, fairness and compassion.

The dedication of this courtroom honors Judge Chrein’s unwavering commitment to the fair administration of criminal justice and the vigilant protection of the rights of the accused.”

Judge Chrein died on March 15, 2005 after a long illness. He will be missed.

Two additional full-time U.S. Magistrate Judge positions were filled during 2004, bringing the total of magistrate judges to fifteen, the district’s full complement. Both magistrate judge positions are new appointments. James Orenstein was sworn in as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on June 16, 2004 and sits at the Long Island Courthouse. Judge Orenstein most recently served as Associate Deputy Attorney General and prior to that as an “Attorney-Advisor” in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Previously, he served for eleven years as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of New York and was a member of the trial team in the 1995 bombing of the Oklahoma City federal courthouse, and in the trial of mobster John Gotti. Kiyo A. Matsumoto was sworn in as a U.S. Magistrate Judge on July 12, 2004 and she sits in the Brooklyn Courthouse. Judge Matsumoto joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office in 1983, and most recently served as Chief of the Civil Division, and as Senior Trial Counsel.

Probation Department

The work of the Probation Department remained at essentially the same high levels as in 2003, with 3,693 cases supervised, and 870 collateral reports (reports from other federal districts). Investigations decreased to 1,437 from the prior year, for a variance of 23 percent.

Pretrial Services

Pretrial Services conducted 1,809 bail investigations in FY 2004, a decrease of 19 percent. Separately, pretrial supervision cases totaled 704, a decrease of 21.7 percent. Collateral investigations totaled 146, and there were 32 diversion supervision cases.

ADR Program

A total of 276 civil cases were assigned to the mandatory Arbitration program for cases valued at $150,000 or less, and 245 Arbitration cases were closed. The Mediation program for complex civil actions had a total of 239 cases referred during Fiscal Year 2004. A total of 104 cases were settled and 64 cases were not settled, for a settlement of rate of 62 percent, in the reporting period.

Our ADR website (http://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/adr/) posts extensive information on the ADR program, including the names of mediators and arbitrators listed by speciality; a schedule of pending mediations and arbitrations, by case, date and time; and information on ADR procedures; Local Rules for Arbitration and Mediation and other general ADR information. The ADR Committee is chaired by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy.

The CJA Panel

The CJA Panel Committee, chaired by Judge Frederic Block with judicial members Judge Joanna Seybert, Magistrate Judge Michael L. Orenstein and Magistrate Judge Cheryl L. Pollak, completed its annual review of the CJA Panel membership, and held the district’s fourth annual CLE workshop for Panel members, on Immigration Law, in November, 2004. Judge John Gleeson chaired the panel discussion. The CJA Panel Committee also fully reconstituted Panel terms in 2004 to provide for an equal number of membership expirations at the end of each panel year in the future.

Naturalization Ceremonies

The Eastern District of New York remained one of the busiest jurisdictions in the country for the naturalization of new citizens, despite a decline of 8.6 percent in the number of final naturalization hearings scheduled by INS, now part of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. NY-E naturalized 36,770 new citizens in fiscal year 2004 at the Brooklyn Courthouse. The Court continues to hold four naturalization hearings each week throughout the year.

Court Administration

The District Court and the Clerk’s Office took the last step toward complete electronic case filing when the Board of Judges issued an Administrative Order making electronic document filing by counsel in all civil and criminal cases mandatory, effective August 2, 2004. The Eastern District was one of four pilot federal district courts to start an electronic filing project in 1997. The Court, counsel, parties and the public now have federal court documents available on-line, saving time, effort and cost. The mandatory aspect of the Court’s policy was required to comply fully with the E-Government Act of 2002; to achieve necessary personnel savings in an austere budget environment; and to provide ready access to Court documents. The increase in the number of electronically filed documents after August, 2004 was noticeable immediately. Almost 37,000 court documents were filed electronically from August 1 through September 30, 2004. Attorneys continue to receive free electronic filing training by the Clerk’s Office. Our website now also provides attorneys with an electronic means to register as an e-filer and to apply for admission to the bar of the Eastern District. The convenience and efficiency promoted by mandatory electronic filing and the proactive use of websites by federal district courts can not be overstated. The current federal budget crunch, however, also has decreased significantly the funding available to maintain chambers and court agency computer equipment. This is short-sighted, and ultimately will diminish the ability of federal courts to better serve the public and keep pace with our civil and criminal case workload. Automation equipment must be replaced cyclically, and constantly improved and upgraded. That important systems maintenance requires adequate funding by Congress.

Jury Administration

The district’s percent of underutilized jurors dropped by almost 3 percent in 2004 to 38.2 percent through the end of the calendar year, December 31, 2004. The national average also declined, by 2 percent, to 36.1 percent in FY 2004. NY-E processed seven high-profile anonymous questionnaire voir dires in 2004. The district met and exceeded its goal expressed in the 2003 annual report to bring the total unused percent below 40 percent in 2004.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.

Judicial Resources

In November we celebrated the 25th anniversary on the Bench for the Honorable Neal P. McCurn. Judge McCurn was appointed by President Jimmy Carter on November 2, 1979. Judge McCurn continues to handle an active caseload in the district including some of the oldest and most complex litigation involving Indian land claim cases. Judge McCurn served as Chief Judge from 1988 to 1993 when he assumed senior status.

On January 29th, 2004 Magistrate Judge Gary L. Sharpe was sworn in as the 24th District Court judge for the Northern District of New York, or as we believe here in Northern New York, the 28th District Court judge by virtue of our lineage to the Mother Court as articulated in the Honorable Roger J. Miner’s 1984 annual report on the history of the Northern District. Judge Sharpe filled the vacancy created by Judge Thomas J. McAvoy when he assumed senior status on September 17, 2003. Judge Sharpe joined the Northern District bench in 1997, and served as a United States Magistrate Judge up until his appointment as a United States District Judge. Prior to joining the bench he served as the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York. On February 10th, 2004 Magistrate Judge George H. Lowe was sworn as our newest Magistrate Judge. Magistrate Judge Lowe filled the vacancy created by the elevation of Judge Sharpe to the District Court bench. Magistrate Judge Lowe was previously a partner in the Law Firm of Bond, Schoneck and King, LLP in Syracuse. Magistrate Judge Lowe also served as the United States Attorney in the Northern District from 1978 to 1982.

During 2004 the Court received assistance from seven visiting judges to help us resolve our backlog of pending prisoner cases. Each of these seven judges agreed to sit by designation for a period of one-year, during which time they handled motions and trials on pending prisoner civil rights cases. The seven visiting judges closed 65 cases during 2004. Our thanks go out to the Honorable Warren W. Eginton - District of Connecticut; Honorable Lyle E. Strom - District of Nebraska; Honorable G. Thomas Eisele - Eastern District of Arkansas; Honorable Joseph M. Hood - Eastern District of Kentucky; Honorable John R. Tunheim - District of Minnesota; Honorable Paul A. Magnuson - District of Minnesota; Honorable James K. Singleton - District of Alaska; and the Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, District of Arkansas Eastern. For the upcoming year, we have already secured the services of five judges who have indicated their availability through the intercircuit assignment system to assist courts with pending motions. With these additional resources, we are hopeful that we will be able to further reduce our pending prisoner caseload.

Senior Judge Howard G. Munson continues to take a variety of cases and provides valuable assistance to the Court. Senior Judge Thomas J. McAvoy completed his first full year as a Senior Judge - although Judge McAvoy has taken senior status, he continues to take a full caseload.

Statistical Data

New civil filings fell slightly from the previous year, filings were down by 2.1% in Statistical Year-2004. The number of criminal filings rose in SY-2004 by 18.7%. Some of the increased activity in our criminal filings was attributable to the increased law enforcement presence at our Northern border where criminal filings increased 82% over the previous year. The number of trials completed per-judge in SY-2004 was identical to the number completed in SY-2003, this seems to be consistent with the continued decrease in trials experienced by courts on a national level.

Pending Motions and Three Year Pending Cases

The disposition of motions is critical to the efficient operation of the Court. The Court filed 2950 civil motions during statistical year 2004. During the same time period the court disposed of 3156 motions. As reflected in our JS-56 Report on Pending Motions and Cases Pending for Three Years or more, the district’s pending motions (as of September 30, 2004) decreased 7% from SY- 2003, and three year pending cases increased 4% over 2003.

Space and Facilities

Albany: Construction on a new grand jury room got underway in December of 2004, we anticipate that the construction will be completed by May of 2005. We had hoped to have this project completed in 2003, however funding issues have delayed the project.

Syracuse: The Judicial Conference has recommended that a new United States Courthouse be constructed in Syracuse. The long range space plan was to include site selection and design which was scheduled for FY-2006, and funding in FY-2008. The schedule has been delayed due to the national budget crisis. Plans are underway in Syracuse to design space to accommodate the future needs of the court in the Hanley building until such time as a new courthouse is constructed.

Plattsburgh: On December 23, 2004 Congress designated Plattsburgh, New York as an official place of holding Court. Plattsburgh is the home base for our part-time Magistrate Judge Larry A. Kudrle. Judge Kudrle handles initial appearances for defendants that are arrested crossing the St. Lawrence River from Canada into the United States. The federal law enforcement presence at our northern border has more than tripled since September 11, 2001. Criminal filings at the border rose 82% from SY-2003. The United States Attorney, Glenn Suddaby, is working to establish an office at Plattsburgh to help coordinate the law enforcement function and prosecution efforts on the border. Once his office is established, the Court will seek permission to establish a more formal court presence in Plattsburgh. In anticipation of this need, the District established a new jury division in Plattsburgh. The new division will include jurors from the counties of Clinton, Essex and Franklin.

District Court Clerk’s Office

The Clerks Office went live on the judiciary’s new electronic case filing system CM/ECF on January 1, 2004. All of the hard work and preparation that was done in 2003 has paid off. The Court is now receiving more than 60% of all filings electronically, and that number continues to grow each month. The Clerk’s Office has worked very closely with our Federal Court Bar Association and the individual county bar associations to bring the training on CM/ECF to the lawyers and their support staff directly. The Clerk’s Office offers training at each of our four staffed courthouses in the District, in addition to regular monthly training dates at each courthouse the Clerk took the CM/ECF program on the road to train members of the bar and their staff at the most northerly points in the district.

The Clerk’s Office in conjunction with the FCBA has also developed a training program for the three law schools in our district. This public outreach effort will help to provide law school graduates in our district with the real world skills necessary to file electronically in any district in the United States. Since going live on January 1st, 2004 the Clerk’s Office has trained over 5000.

Innovation is alive and well in Northern New York. Over the course of the last year one of our very talented consolidated automation staff members developed an automated inventory system that is linked to the Court’s national accounting system (FAS4T). This project was made possible with the support of the Administrative Office. The program was designed to provide any Court unit with an easy to use, customizable, automated tool for maintaining accountable inventory items while incurring very little overhead costs. All the software needed to run this application can be downloaded for free. Given the lean budgetary times that are upon us, we need to look at ways to improve productivity by eliminating needless data entry and tap into the tools and resources available to us, this new system does that while at the same time strengthening internal control processes.

In September of 2004 our Clerk of Court, Lawrence K. Baerman received the directors award for outstanding leadership. Larry was recognized for his contributions to the judiciary on a national level, and for his outstanding leadership and contributions to the bench and bar here in Northern New York. The Clerk and Chief Probation Officer continue to work closely on the consolidation of administrative support services. Automation, human resources, personnel, budget and finance have or will be consolidated within the next year. Good fiscal planning and stewardship by the unit executives has allowed the Court to weather the most recent budget crisis without the need for major layoffs or furloughs. This initiative will allow the units to continue to provide the highest possible level of service to the bench and bar while absorbing what we expect to be significant reductions in future staffing levels.

PROBATION / PRETRIAL OFFICE

Halfway House

After more than ten years of actively working to establish a halfway house in Syracuse, it was finally realized on November 1, 2004. It has 25 beds reserved for federal offenders. With halfway houses in operation in Albany and Binghamton, a total of 65 beds district-wide are available. The halfway house is run by a halfway house company with vast experience.

Automation

In the area of automation, many advances have been realized. Court units can now share the “R” drive for viewing and exchanging documents. In April, PACTS^ECM went live in the district. Chrono conversion followed in June. In conjunction with this, PDAs were issued to officers. Information can be downloaded to the PDA allowing them to take case information in the field and then uploaded upon their return to the office. Investigations into criminal history has been streamlined. This past year an officer has been working with a select group of “high tech data specialists” who are developing the ATLAS project which would allow for NCIC to be available on computer desktops rather than through a central terminal. This has widespread national implications.

Sex Offender

Supervision techniques continue to improve with the use of contract treatment providers, periodic polygraph examinations and internet use monitoring.

United States Bankruptcy Court

for the Northern District of New York

As in previous years, the number of new bankruptcy cases filed in 2004 continued to increase over the number of filings of previous years. The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York was able to smoothly handle the increase in caseload without increases in staff because of the Court’s continued focus on effectively using all resources available to it.

In calendar year 2004 the court trainers conducted ECF classroom training for over 444 attorneys and approximately 200 support staff. ECF logins and passwords were also provided to approximately 220 out of district attorneys. Attorneys and staff members of the U.S. Trustees offices were trained and are filing electronically.

On July 1, 2004 the court mandated electronic case filing and required most documents to be filed through the court’s electronic filing system. Prior to July 1st approximately 53% of cases and 41% of all documents were filed electronically by attorneys and creditors. Within one month after mandatory electronic case filing was implemented, approximately 81% of cases and 88% of all documents were filed electronically. A project to permit the electronic submission of proposed orders was started in 2004 and is scheduled to be implemented by June 2005.

Improvements and renovations were made to existing space in the Albany office. The space housing the Operations Department was reconfigured to provide greater airflow, make better use of the space, and to take advantage of natural light. The space housing the Lunch Room was renovated by removing dark flooring and wall covering and replacing them with lighter, easy to clean surfaces. It is important to note that these renovations were paid for with the court’s local funds and did not require any funding from the Administrative Office.

The Bankruptcy Court continually seeks to take full advantage of technologies available to it. Two technology driven projects were completed in 2004. The first project involved equipment upgrades for the courtrooms. The courtrooms in both Albany and Utica were upgraded with digital recording equipment for use by the ECROs. The judges and selected staff are now able to listen to court proceedings directly from their desktop computers. The second technology driven project involved the creation of electronic personnel folders housed on a secure server. Each personnel folder contains an electronic index of items contained in it and can be quickly and easily accessed by authorized users. The need to transport paper personnel files between offices has been eliminated.

A third technology related project was started in 2004 and will be completed in 2005. The Automation Department and the Operations Department began an imaging project to enhance the ability to electronically search older bankruptcy case records. When the project is completed users will be able to electronically view dockets and party information from 1986 forward.

The past few fiscal years have been increasingly difficult for the courts and FY2004 was no exception. Many courts found it necessary to reduce staff even when faced with increased caseloads. Last year the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York was able to absorb an increased workload without adding or reducing staff. The Court was also able to complete several key projects with its existing funding. And finally, due to keeping a close eye on the court’s bottom line, the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of New York was able to return $ 120,000 to the AO to help reduce the budget shortfall faced by the entire Judiciary.

Annual Report of the Northern District of New York

on Gender, Racial and Ethnic Fairness in the Court

The Northern District of New York is committed to the fair and equitable treatment of all those that appear before the Court or are employed by the Court. The Court remains mindful of the need to protect against bias based on other grounds, such as sexual orientation, disability, national origin, religion and age.

The Court has continued the practice of providing pro se litigants with pro bono counsel to assist them at the trial stage of their cases. In addition, the Court has extensively used video conference technology to accommodate financially challenged litigants by providing them with an avenue to avoid travel costs associated with appearances before the Court.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey

The Clerk’s Office for the Southern District of New York operates with a staff of 206 employees with offices at Foley Square and 500 Pearl Street in Manhattan and at 300 Quarropas Street in White Plains. The Clerk’s Office provides record keeping, case management, automation, financial and other services for the District Court. The operating budget for fiscal year 2004 was $ 13,447,473 for personnel, automation and administrative expenses.

During calendar year 2004, the Clerk’s Office completed the transition to the CM/ECF (Case Management/ Electronic Case Filing) program. All civil and criminal docketing events have been converted from the old ICMS program to the new system. The first wave of District Judges and all Magistrate Judges began accepting electronic filings in new cases on December 1, 2003. The remaining Judges joined the system in two waves in March and June of 2004.

The financial and systems staff of the Clerk’s Office completed the preparations for the implementation of FAS4T, a new automated financial system, which went live in March 2004. Conversion included training, workflow process mapping and development of new security controls.

For the period October 1, 2003 to September 30, 2004, there were 12,422 cased filed.

During the past year, the Board of Judges amended Local Civil Rule 1.3(a), Admission to the Bar and Local Civil Rule 1.5(d)(1), Discipline of Attorneys.

Individual departments of the Clerk’s Office report the following activities in the year 2004:

White Plains

The year 2004 saw 1152 new civil cases filed at the White Plains courthouse, an increase of 18 cases. Court users and the public expressed satisfaction with the first full year of Electronic Case Filing. Ground was broken in Middletown, NY, for a facility to house a courtroom for a part time Magistrate Judge as well as offices for US Probation and the US Marshal. The facility is expected to be opened in the spring of 2005.

Jury Department

During the year 2004, the Jury Department was diligent in performing its tasks under strenuous circumstances. Since 2003 we have lost two positions to retirement and we cannot fill those positions because of the Court’s budget constraints. 2004 was a very busy year, in which we provided very large jury panels to a few high profile cases including criminal prosecutions of Martha Stewart, Lynn Stewart, Worldcom, Adelphia Communications and the Quinones death penalty case. The Jury Department, though understaffed, not only performed the tasks under challenging conditions, but flawlessly continued to process all the other functions of the department.

In 2004 we also witnessed a trend that was quite different than prior years. During the summertime in 2004, the Jury Department summoned large numbers of jurors and provided large quantities of jury panels to requesting Judges. Usually we spend the summer processing and qualifying over 30,000 perspective jurors to maintain a large number of jurors in our qualified jury wheel. Even under larger than usual jury returns for the requesting Judges, we were able to still qualify over 30,000 jurors for the qualified wheel. This required members of the department to put in extra hours due to the unfilled positions. This trend also carried over during the holidays as we returned and processed 668 jurors to the various Judges for selections in December 2004 alone.

The Jury Management System (JMS) has been upgraded with newer features that help us perform some of its functions more efficiently. With the installation of Fas4T, JMS now has a compatible system that allows us to pay our jurors without the extra steps that plagued the prior financial system.

Finance

The calendar year of 2004 proved to be both challenging and rewarding for the Financial Department. On March 1, 2004, the Southern District of New York. and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals saw the introduction of the Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow (FAST). The FAST System is used to track and disburse funds which are allocated to the Court by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The Financial Department spent many months in preparation and training, with the Administrative Office, to successfully implement the FAST system. For the year of 2004, the Financial Department filed 10,322 complaints, issued 34,283 checks, receipted $606,619,931.19, disbursed $620,694,645.62 and maintained 328 interest bearing accounts with an aggregate value of $749,071,947.12.

Docket Services

During calendar year 2004 the Clerk’s Office docketing section has been presented with many challenging situations. Despite the implementation of CM/ECF, a large number of documents continue to be filed manually. Reducing the number of manually filed documents has proven to be a slow process. This has been in part been a result of the large number of cases filed and accepted as related to previously filed non-ECF actions. Additionally, a number of very active Multi-District Litigation cases as well as a number of mega cases (also non-ECF) have contributed to the on-going deluge of manually filed documents. Only with the prioritization of documents to be processed and the assistance of employees from other sections have we been able to keep the work moving in an orderly manner.

Courtroom Support

In 2004 the Courtroom Deputies and Relief Courtroom Deputies assisted other departments in the Clerk’s Office to a much greater degree than in the past. The Relief Deputies assisted the jury, finance and docketing departments on a daily basis. They were also available, as needed, to provide assistance to the Interpreter’s Office and Supply. Relief Deputies assisted at the Naturalization Ceremony nearly every Friday. Courtroom Deputies assigned to judges also made themselves available throughout the year and provided assistance to the Jury and Docketing departments. In addition, they offered their time to cover courtroom assignments when needed.

Personnel

During the calendar year 2004, the Personnel Section processed personnel actions for the designated court staff such as appointments, separations, promotions, retirement information; and disseminated benefit information and the processing of forms. New procedures were put in place whereby staff, during Open Seasons for FEHB and TSP, could directly make on-line changes through a private vendor. The need for background checks on all new employees, interns and contracted staff has become routine. A continuance of a hiring freeze throughout the year has prevented the court from filling vacancies and has required that we develop and initiate new strategies to meet operating needs in the coming year. There are 14 vacant positions which have not been filled since the hiring freeze was imposed.

Training

During the last calendar year, the Training Department continued CM/ECF training for attorneys and incoming law clerks, and cross training classes for employees who were reassigned to docket units in view of the current fiscal crisis. The Training Department also developed a quarterly newsletter which will advise employees about training opportunities available for Clerk's office employees. In addition, a new program, entitled "Lunch and Learn ", was implemented whereupon employees can visit the training room during their lunch break to attend a videotape seminar on a variety of subjects to help improve their work and personal performance. Finally, the Training Department also implemented a new program entitled "Learning Day". All Clerk’s Office employees may attend "Learning Day" to review training resources provided by the FJC and any in-house commercial materials available to them. Training specialists are on hand to answer any questions and to assist employees in completing applications or signing up for training activities.

Magistrate Judges Unit

The Southern District Magistrate Judges unit has seen several changes in the past year. We have developed a system to back up our Sealed Vital Records. They are currently being backed up onto 3.5" disc. A second copy is also prepared and forwarded to the White Plains courthouse. We have also merged our docketing system from ICMS to ECF. We now also prepare requisition forms for the public to bring to the Finance Office to purchase Certificate of Dispositions.

Mediation Department

The Mediation Department provides services for the courts in Manhattan and in White Plains. Hundreds of new and adjourned cases were scheduled for mediation sessions during the calendar year. Local Civil Rule 83.12 governs the Court’s mediation program.

Interpreters Office

In FY 2004 interpreters of 36 languages provided foreign language interpretation during 6,667 separate proceedings, an 8% increase in activity over last year. Of these, 4,133 were in-court proceedings, only slighter fewer than FY 2003. Out-of-court matters (pretrial, probation, attorney-client interviews, document translations, phone conferences) totaled 1,613 for all languages, nearly the same number as last year.

Spanish continues to be the most frequently requested foreign language. In FY 2004, 75% of the interpreter unit caseload was in Spanish. The next most frequently requested languages remained the same as in previous years: Russian, Arabic, Mandarin and Fuzhou. Total expenditure for interpreter services, paid from a central Administrative Office account, was $445,196, a 20% decrease over last year despite a nearly similar caseload. A total of 24 criminal trials required foreign language interpretation, 18 in Spanish, 2 in Russian, 1 in Arabic, 1 in Turkish, 1 in Punjabi and 1 in Haitian Creole. This was a 50% decrease in the number of trials as compared to FY 2003.

Recruitment and coaching sessions of interpreter candidates in hard-to-find languages continue on an as-needed basis. Interpreters in lesser-used languages require in-depth orientation because of differing skill levels in the available pool and the lack of traditional testing in those languages. Seven exotic language interpreters had individual orientation sessions this year. A growing challenge is to identify reliable interpreters of African languages.

The Interpreters Unit website, www.sdnyinterpreters.org, is linked to the court intranet and provides instant scheduling information for interpreted proceedings. Its public face provides useful information for the legal community and for interpreters in search of resources.

Milestones

During the past year, one judicial vacancy was filled. Kenneth M. Karas was inducted on September 7, 2004. I note with extreme sadness the passing of two of our distinguished colleagues, the Honorable Whitman Knapp on June 14, 2004 and the Honorable Milton Pollack on August 13, 2004. They made important contributions to the Court, and their presence will be missed.

PRETRIAL SERVICES

As the component of the federal judiciary responsible for the bail investigation of defendants, the Pretrial Service Office is committed to providing verified information and assessments of the risks of non-appearance and danger to the community for every defendant appearing before the court following arrest. While working under the guidance of the court, pretrial services seeks to effectively supervise persons released to its custody and thereby promote public safety, facilitate the judicial process and seek alternatives to detention.

The Pretrial Services Office interviewed 98% of the defendants who appeared on criminal charges during FY 2004. Ninety-six percent of the interviews were conducted prior to the initial court hearing. While bail investigations decreased from the previous year, the court released more defendants with supervision conditions as compared to last year.

Our district continues to have a low detention rate, especially when compared to other large metropolitan districts. Our release rate at the initial bail hearing was 15% higher than the national average and among the highest when compared to other large metropolitan districts.

At the end of the fiscal year, 9/30/04, there were 1,025 defendants reporting to Pretrial Services for supervision as required by their court-ordered release conditions. Ninety six percent of those released appeared in court as required and 97 % of defendants were not arrested during their bail period.

The year was challenging, as our staff and operations were affected by budget reductions. While operating with reduced funding and loss of staff, we had to impose spending limits on services particularly inpatient residential services. In attempting to maintain services to defendants we initiated a pre-screening of defendants to identify Medicaid eligibility at an early stage and assisted defendants with the application for Medicaid. This initiative reduced our drug treatment costs to enable us to provide services to a greater volume of defendants. The Chief presented our Medicaid initiative at the Chiefs’ conference in Atlanta and it was selected as one of the three most helpful cost containment initiatives for use by other districts.

There were several innovations developed during the year. We developed and implemented a random drug testing program, requiring defendants to call a toll free telephone number to be informed by a voice mail message whether to report for testing the next day. Results have shown the program to be effective in assuring compliance with court ordered drug testing conditions, and establishing more efficacy than a testing program where a defendant can “time” his drug use to evade detection.

Pretrial Services has entered into a partnership with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services to implement a new criminal record system that provides several improvements and advancements to complement the existing criminal record retrieval system. This system, known as eJustice ,will eventually replace the existing NYSPIN criminal record system. The most ambitious project involves establishing a live scan electronic fingerprint system to provide the court with identification of a defendant based on fingerprints rather than a name check. We could electronically transmit fingerprints and receive a criminal record within an hour of transmission, enabling our office to provide positive fingerprint identification of the defendant appearing before the court at the initial hearing. In addition, the fingerprints could be registered with New York State for notification, should the defendant be arrested while released on bail. This would provide for timely notification of the violation to our US Attorney and court and reduce the need for manual record checks conducted by officers.

Pretrial Services is the front door to the federal criminal justice system and has a unique opportunity to lay the foundation for each defendant’s success, not only during the period of pretrial services supervision, but even beyond that time. Officers strive to work with each defendant in such a manner that this contact with the criminal justice system will be their last, and so prevent the front door of the system from becoming a revolving door.

U.S. PROBATION

Fiscal year 2004 represented the most difficult time faced by the Southern District of New York’s Probation Office in its history. The task of continuing to provide high quality work in the face of severe funding shortfalls challenged both staff and administrators. Probation faced a 10% cut in funding for salaries and was forced to downsize staff by way of buy outs, early outs and position abolishment. At total on 16 staff members left our agency via one of the three methods. At the end of the fiscal year, our total staff was down to 157 after having been 173 the previous year. Each of the three divisions that make up our agency - Supervision, Investigations and Administrative Services- were forced to restructure and rethink our methods of operation.

Even in the face of these changes, the probation office was able to continue and even improve upon, our service to the Court and to the community.

Supervision:

The number of supervision cases has been stable during the past three years, while the number of probation officers and support staff has been reduced. The resulting higher caseloads and workloads has been difficult. Yet, the supervision division has continued to provide protection to the community and services to offenders. Supervision officers continued to concentrate on spending the majority of their time in the field, meeting offenders where they live and work. This renewed focus on field work has been effective in helping offenders comply with the conditions of supervision and helping them to lead productive lifestyles. Officers in supervision continue to specialize in the areas of substance abuse, mental health, sex offenders, electronic monitoring/home confinement, special offenders/ organized crime, community service, financial crimes and general crimes.

The total number of new case received for supervision in FY 2004 was 1399. They are represented as follows:

The division also improved upon our protection of the community by way of innovative field operations. The numbers of searches and surveillance were up, resulting in an increase in violations of supervision. During FY04, several of our search and surveillance operations have resulted in new criminal charges on both the local and federal levels. The division also continued to conduct high intensity field operations (HIFOs) each month, where the concentration is on at risk offenders. These operations, conducted during the late evening hours and weekends, have been highly effective in bringing offenders facing violations to the point of renewed compliance. Notwithstanding our successful special operations, the supervision division initiated 472 violation of supervision in FY 2004. Additionally, supervision officers completed 595 prerelease investigations, 188 pre transfer investigations and 102 furlough requests.

Investigations:

Probation officers working in the presentence investigations division continue to complete a significant number of investigations and reports in FY 2004. These report often involve sophisticated crimes and high profile offenders. Also faced with decreased probation officer and support staff, the presentence division developed an innovation of its own. Our district receives countless requests for collateral assistance from other district throughout the country. Answering each request while operating under decreases funding became very difficult for us. Our office, therefore, developed a collateral assistance web site. This web site provides information that allows our colleagues the information they need to request assistance directly from New York City agencies. This process effectively cuts out the middle man (i.e. our office) and allows districts to receive request information in a more timely fashion. This process did not take us out of collateral assistance entirely. On the contrary, we are still assisting our colleagues who are having difficulty obtaining information. It has, however, decreased the amount of time spent on collaterals and has allowed us to utilize staff in other areas.

In FY 2004, the presentence division completed 1653 presentence investigations and 823 collateral investigations.

Administrative Services:

The administrative services branch includes automation, data quality analysis, personnel, budget, purchasing and overall support to probation officers. The office’s administrative assistants suffered significantly when downsizing became a reality. Those administrative assistants that remain with us are charged with accomplishing much more. These professionals rose to the task during FY 2004, filling in and taking on added responsibilities. It was not unusual to see administrative staff staying late and coming in on weekends to meet their obligations. The staff members that make up our administrative support are dedicated to engaging in quality behind-the-scenes work that support the overall operation of our office.

Annual Report 2004

United States Bankruptcy Court for the

Southern District of New York

During Fiscal Year 2004, this court experienced a 21% overall increase in filings. Most notable is the 220% increase in chapter 11 filings. This court’s weighted case filings per judge are 6,321 as compared to the national median of 1,571. Therefore, the judges in this district are carrying a caseload more than four times the national median. In response to the fact that the judges in this district continuously administer caseloads at least twice above the national median, the Judicial Conference of the United States has endorsed the Second Circuit’s request for two additional judgeships.

There are more than 8,000 attorneys registered to use the court’s Electronic Case File System (ECF) and during fiscal year 2004, approximately 1,400 new attorneys were added and 1,963 orders to appear pro hac vice were signed. The court continues to conduct training classes for new users of the system on an average of twice a week.

FILINGS DURING FY YEAR 2004

Chapter	Number of Filings	Percent Change
7	15,661	10%
11	2,955	220%
12	1	-0-%
13	2,177	5.6%
304	76	52%
Adversary Proceedings	7,935	15.2%

A total of 2,387 chapter 11 “mega” cases were filed with the court during FY 2004. The majority, 2,361, were affiliated with the Footstar case commenced in White Plains. In addition, orders were entered confirming the Enron and WorldCom “mega” cases during FY04, and these and other “mega” cases commenced in previous years continue to be administered.

During FY04, efforts to improve the court’s service to the public has been enhanced. The old analog courtroom recording systems have been upgraded and more sophisticated digital recording devices have been installed in the court’s divisional locations in White Plains and Poughkeepsie.

Long term planning for the clerk’s office is becoming a reality. The “Records Room” in the New York City location is all but closed as old files are shipped to the archives; the three divisions have been sharing the workload more evenly; and the court’s inventory has been transferred to an electronic tracking system, which enables us to more accurately account for the court’s property and its location at all times.

The court has adopted a program based on the C.A.R.E. program started in the Western District of New York and has modified it to fit the needs of the local community. We have done the groundwork to introduce the program to public and private schools in the New York metropolitan area.

Judge Cornelius Blackshear, who retired March 31, 2005, conducted two 10-week classes educating a total of 40 court employees in bankruptcy. These classes were very successful and the end result has been a benefit to the court. An educated staff is better equipped to understand the importance of their role in the administration of cases through the court.

As the caseload continues to rise, so does the involvement in the bankruptcy system by people and entities unfamiliar with bankruptcy. Having a highly educated staff to assist the public with procedural information has enhanced the court’s reputation and has eased the complexity of navigating the system for many of these constituents. The court is committed to providing current, correct information and continues to explore better ways to do so.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF VERMONT

Chief Judge William K. Sessions III

Clerk’s Office

During calendar year 2004, the Clerk’s Office continued to evolve in response to major policy initiatives promulgated by both the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference and Leonidas Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The Clerk’s Office took advantage of the buyout and early-out retirement initiatives offered during the year and underwent a reorganization of its management structure. A mid-level supervisory position was eliminated at the Rutland divisional office along with a corresponding courtroom deputy position supervised from this divisional office. This management change “de-layered” the Clerk’s Office organizational hierarchy and reduced its management structure from three separate levels to two. The end result is a “flatter” organization with a “stream-lined” management structure which will be more responsive to the operational needs of the court. Two employees affected by this change qualified for early retirement and buyout initiatives offered by court management. Additionally, one new employee who possessed a skill set more in line with the future automation needs of the Clerk’s Office was subsequently hired to fill the Brattleboro divisional office vacancy. This restructuring change was made effective on October 1, 2004 and was implemented uneventfully.

Based upon the new district court staffing formula adopted by the Judiciary and fielded by the Court Administration Division, the authorized staffing level for the Clerk’s Office for 2004 increased from 21.5 to 21.7 authorized positions. This minimal staffing increase equated to the very small increase in civil and criminal case filings which occurred from the prior statistical year. Although 21.7 work units were authorized for fiscal year 2004, the Clerk’s Office continued to effectively manage all of its workload with an on-board staffing total of 18.2 positions. The District’s pro se law clerk staffing allocation remained stable during calendar year 2004 and remained authorized at one-full time, permanent position. Based upon its on-board staffing level coupled with a relatively stable operating environment, the Clerk’s Office once again managed to return – for a second year in a row – a portion of its operating budget in order to assist the Judiciary with its national financial plan.

Information Technology and Automation Activity

During calendar year 2004, the district spent the majority of its automation-related efforts preparing for CM/ECF implementation as a Wave 17 court. During December 2003, individuals from both the Clerk’s Office and judges’ chambers’ staff attended CM/ECF applications training at the Systems Development and Support Division (SDSD) training center in San Antonio, Texas. At the start of the new calendar year, the District’s chief deputy clerk for operations and its director of technology attended dictionary training in San Antonio, Texas. The District’s operational managers and the clerk of court then made a one-day site visit to the Northern District of New York to determine how to best implement the CM/ECF system.

In conjunction with the district court’s Court Advisory Group – a successor to the District’s Civil Justice Reform Act Committee – a consensus decision was reached to implement electronic filing using a two-phased approach. It was decided that the “CM” or case management component of electronic filing would be implemented first, allowing system users to become familiar and confident with the operational aspects of the system. After an indefinite trial period consisting of some six to nine months, the district would then implement the second phase or “ECF” portion of electronic filing which permits file transfers over the internet. In preparation for conversion to CM/ECF, the district’s Solaris-based servers were converted to the new Linux operating system and the most current version of the CM/ECF application software (Version 2.3) was installed. One management employee and another deputy clerk also received formal data quality assurance (DQA) training in San Antonio, Texas. During late October, the remainder of the Clerk’s Office staff were trained locally on CM/ECF operation procedures. Data and image migration then took place with multiple validation efforts also occurring. Rather than implement the new CM system during the last quarter of the calendar year, a strategic decision was made at this time to convert and “go-live” on the first business day of the new calendar year. Conversion to the new system at this time would allow for a “clean break” from the legacy system and would establish a definite milestone date for the District’s conversion to electronic filing.

In addition to CM/ECF preparation, the Court’s Lotus Notes server was converted to Microsoft Windows Version 2003 from its existing Windows 2000 operating system. The electronic evidence presentation system for Chief Judge William K. Sessions’ courtroom was also upgraded with touch screen technology. This effort was funded fully from the court’s operating budget without the need for supplemental or other project-based funding. Lastly, both of the district court’s intranet and internet websites were redesigned using Macromedia Dreamweaver software to give each website a more professional and uniform look. Each individual judicial chambers also continues to post electronic versions of selected court opinions to the Court’s external website using the CourtWeb judicial opinion posting system.

Caseload Statistics

As indicated by the graphs below, civil case filings for calendar year 2004 once again increased slightly from the prior calendar year and interestingly enough, again by the exact same figure – 7 cases. Based upon long-term statistical data, the District expects that the trend of increased civil filings to continue until the District once again reaches its long-standing filing base of approximately 400-420 civil flings on a per annum basis.

Regarding the district court’s criminal caseload, as indicated by the graph below, while the total number of criminal case filings showed a slight increase over the prior year, for the first time during the last five calendar years, actual defendant filings showed a slight decrease. This leveling trend in criminal defendant filings is attributed to the increased number of criminal jury trials expected to occur during the upcoming calendar year and the degree of prosecutorial resources required to try cases.

The District continued to manage its single, long-term, capital offense case – United States v. Fell. This case was initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint on December 1, 2000 with the government subsequently filing an indictment some nine weeks later on February 1, 2001. The government proceeded to file its notice of intent to seek the death penalty on January 30, 2002. From October 2002 through November 2004, the case was on interlocutory appeal at circuit on the issue whether the death penalty was constitutional. On October 28, 2004, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued its mandate and remanded the case back to the district court consistent with the opinion of the appellate court. The District plans for an extended, two-phase criminal trial to begin sometime during May 2005.

Jury Operations

Calendar year 2004 was a General Election year. During late November, the District commenced refilling its master jury wheels by contacting all 251 Vermont city and town clerk offices for the purpose of securing current voter registration lists. Pursuant to the District’s Jury Selection Plan, all jury wheels must be completely refilled and fully operational no later than July1st of the calendar following a presidential election.

During the early part of the year, 1,000 jurors from the District’s existing Northern Jury Division were pre-qualified and segregated as potential jurors for the District’s death penalty case using the automated Jury Management System (JMS).

Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) Program

The Court’s Early Neutral Evaluation (ENE) program celebrated its tenth year of operation during calendar year 2004. The Court continues to rely upon this particular form of alternative dispute resolution program for reducing both the cost of litigation and case delay to the parties. During 2004, the Court’s ENE program was slightly expanded in scope in order to allow bankruptcy cases to qualify for the program.

Since the program’s inception on July 1, 1994, a total of 2,145 cases have passed through the program and more than 50 attorneys have participated in evaluator training. During calendar 2004, a total of 85 ENE sessions were conducted, a figure which is up slightly from a total of 74 cases conducted during 2003. Vermont’s long-term, full-settlement rate continues to hold steady and for calendar year 2004, once again calculated out to be 34 percent for all cases participating in the program. The only significant, long-term change to the District’s program appears to be an on-going trend for the parties to utilize independent evaluators rather than evaluators comprising the Court’s Early Neutral Evaluation panel. During 2004, this trend continued in that 55 non-panel evaluators were utilized, up from a total of 47 independent evaluators used during the prior calendar year. This trend for the parties to use “off-panel” evaluators will continue to be monitored in order to determine the basis for this trend and the potential need for the Court to modify its program.

Criminal Justice Act (CJA) Panel Operations

Vermont made a total of 276 appointments pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act during calendar year 2004. This total is exactly one less than the total number of appointments made during 2003 and appears to mirror the “leveling” trend experienced with the District’s criminal case filings. The District’s all-time high for CJA appointments took place during calendar year 2002 when a total of 291 appointments were made.

Vermont has shared a public defender with the Northern District of New York since September 1977. On August 19, 2002, the District of Vermont amended its Criminal Justice Act Plan to allow for the creation of a separate public defender office based upon the number of CJA appointments being made on an annualized basis. Vermont’s request to establish an independent FPD office was approved by the Second Circuit Judicial Council on June 5, 2003, subject to ratification by the Judicial Conference of the United States. On December 15, 2004, Vermont was formally notified that the Defender Services Division (DSD) had certified the district as eligible for a separate federal public defender office. Late in the year, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit informed the district court that a national search for a qualified federal defender would commence sometime during early 2005.

Local Rules Revision

During calendar year 2004, the district court’s Local Rules of Procedure were amended after substantial input from the civil law subcommittee of the District’s Court Advisory Group. Substantive changes include the adoption of a new local rule which conforms to the policy requirements of the E-Government Act of 2002 regarding how confidential and sensitive information is to be filed; adoption of new rules dealing with pretrial conferences, exhibits and costs. Two existing criminal rules involving pretrial, presentence and probation records also underwent slight modification regarding how confidential information is to be maintained by the U.S. Probation Office.

Space and Facilities

No major tenant-alteration projects took place during the year other than the formal approval of the Clerk’s Office Computer Room Expansion Project slated for the Headquarters Office in Burlington. This project was fully funded from the court’s operating budget and work commenced late in the calendar year. The project is scheduled for completion during early spring 2005 and will allow for additional expansion space for the district’s DCN network, Lotus Notes, FAS₄T, JMS and CM/ECF servers.

The General Service Administration’s Burlington-based, prospectus-level HVAC project was completed slightly ahead of schedule during November 2004. As such, the heating, cooling and ventilation systems for the Burlington Federal Building & Courthouse have now been totally replaced and modernized. A roof replacement project is scheduled for the Burlington Federal Building & Courthouse during calendar year 2005.

Naturalization Proceedings

The district court conducted fourteen separate naturalization hearings during calendar year 2004. A total of 437 naturalization candidates became citizens. The months of June and November each had one additional naturalization hearing scheduled in order to assist the Immigration and Naturalization Service with processing a long-standing citizenship backlog.

PROBATION & PRETRIAL SERVICES

The Vermont Probation Office is a combined court unit fulfilling both the Probation and Pretrial Services functions, with three units providing service to the Court; Pretrial Services, Presentence Investigations and Post-Conviction Supervision. We began the fiscal year with 21.6 employees. We were authorized 23.6 units and funded at 23.1, a small increase over last year. Reductions in the Judiciary's budget necessitated our performing a record high workload with limited staff. One employee transferred to the District Court Clerk's Office and a second accepted a buy-out effective December 31, 2004. Thus we finished the fiscal year with 20.6 employees and the prospect of less next year.

The Burlington Office includes the administrative staff, Canadian Liaison, Pretrial Services Unit, Presentence Unit and Post-Conviction Supervision Unit as well as support staff. The Burlington location also houses the drug testing laboratory. The Brattleboro, Vermont Office is staffed by two probation officers. There is also an un-staffed office in Rutland, used by officers to meet with offenders and to attend Court hearings in Rutland. We have maximized the use of space in all facilities and have no room for expansion in Burlington and Brattleboro. We await GSA's action on renovations to our Burlington Office to make it more functional.

The Probation Office has a Training Committee, which includes a training coordinator and other professional, support and administrative staff. This Committee arranges and provides training to the general staff. The Probation & Pretrial Services Office also has a Tuition Assistance Program which affords training opportunities for staff on a selective individual basis from outside sources. Internal resources include a video library, packaged training programs offered by the Federal Judicial Center, local consultants and other resource materials as well as training through the FJTN. Staff participated in numerous training programs this year including Officer Safety, Sexual Harassment, and a National Guidelines Seminar.

We have continued our association with small districts from New England in a regional Critical Incident Stress Management Team. The Administrative Manager served as a mentor in the continuing implementation of FAS4T. The Chief serves as the Northeast Region's representative to the Chief's Advisory Group as well as a member of the STATS Working Group.

Despite reducing staff and limited funding, the District of Vermont's Presentence Investigation workload increased 13% this year. We completed a record high number of presentence investigation reports this year.

Our Post-Conviction Supervision cases remained steady at 220.

During FY 2004, we continued to have substance abuse and mental health contracts in all fourteen counties of Vermont. The contracts are monitored by the District’s DATS officer with the assistance of one of the probation officers assigned to the pretrial services function. We had a decrease in collateral investigations conducted locally and had no change in the number of violations brought to the Court.

We continued to use electronic monitoring as a sanction and in lieu of half-way house placements. As Vermont has no half-way house facilities, Bureau of Prisons inmates are re-integrated into the community through the electronic monitoring program.

During FY 2004, we experienced a 37.3% increase in Pretrial Services cases activated, with a total of 298 cases for the year. As with the presentence investigations, this is an all time high for the District of Vermont and somewhat remarkable given the funding and resource limitations.

At the end of FY 2004, we had 115 defendants under supervision, a 22% increase over last year. Within the Second Circuit, Vermont remains one of the highest in releasing defendants at initial hearing and one of the lowest, 32.3%, of defendants detained and never released. The majority of offenses charged in the District of Vermont were drug related offenses, totaling 58.3%, up from 53.2% last year. 7.4% of offenses were fraud while 13.4% were weapon/firearm related. Our post-conviction supervision caseload results from 58.6% of drug law violators and 16.8% firearms violators.

We continue to provide liaison services between the Federal Probation System and Canadian Law Enforcement. During the fiscal year, we provided 122 investigative reports to other districts relating to Canadian offenders. In addition, the Canadian Liaison officer has participated in a number of conferences related to anti-terrorist and border issues, both as a participant and presenter.

The majority of offenses charged in the District of Vermont were drug related offenses, totaling 58.3%, up from 53.2% last year. 7.4% of offenses were fraud while 13.4% were weapon/firearm related. Our post-conviction supervision caseload results from 58.6% of drug law violators and 16.8% firearms violators.

United States Bankruptcy Court

District of Vermont

CM/ECF

We trained an additional 36 attorneys and approximately 10 non-attorneys in 2004; most of them at the court’s training room. As of December 31, 2004, we had trained a cumulative total of 222 attorneys and approximately 100 non-attorneys. Additionally, we registered 40 additional attorneys in 2004, bringing our cumulative total to 224. We also began registering Limited Participant CM/ECF users, thus enabling non-attorneys to file electronically proofs of claim, notices of transfers of claims, notices of appearance and requests for notice, and claim withdrawals. As of December 31, 2004, we had registered 152 individual limited participant users.

Attorneys filed documents online on behalf of their clients 10,517 times in 2004, with trustees adding an additional 2,170 filings, and our newest category of filers, Limited Participants, kicking in an additional 91 transfers of claims and 821 claims. For the year, this accounts for approximately 75% of all filings and 21% of all claims, up from 49% and 0% in 2003, respectively. Attorneys opened 1,120 bankruptcy cases and 52 adversary proceedings electronically, which constituted approximately 66% (up 15% from 2003) and 62% (up 40% from 2003) of those categories, respectively. By December 31, 2004, over 86% (up 22% from 2003) of all attorney transactions were being completed online.

Community Outreach

Court staff continued to offer our interactive educational mini-course entitled $tart $mart, which we developed in 2003. We offered the course five times in 2004, at both high schools and colleges. The course continues to be well-received by participants.

Court staff also worked with local attorneys and the Vermont Bar Association to develop Vermont Bankruptcy Information Clinics. Court staff provided the content and coordination, and volunteer attorneys presented four free clinics (two in Rutland and two in Williston) for persons having financial difficulties and who may be considering filing for bankruptcy without the aid of an attorney, for persons who have already filed for bankruptcy and for anyone else who wanted to learn more about the bankruptcy process.

Inter-Court Cooperation

To expedite the determination of a hotly contested motion to dismiss in a Chapter 11 case in which the parties anticipated over two weeks worth of testimony, the bankruptcy court in Connecticut asked Judge Brown if she would preside over the trial on this motion. Judge Brown agreed and, upon agreement of the parties, venue of the motion was transferred to Vermont. Throughout February 2004, the court heard eight days of testimony and admitted over 80 exhibits, and thereafter issued a memorandum of decision granting the creditor’s motion to dismiss. The debtor has appealed the decision and the parties are currently at the briefing stage before the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont.

Space and Facilities

In October 2004, Judge Brown’s chambers moved from the U.S. Post Office and Courthouse back to the Opera House.

Also in 2004 . . .

• We sponsored our second annual CM/ECF Users’ Forum, where attorneys and court staff had an open dialog about the status of, pros and cons of, and desired modifications to CM/ECF.

• The court created a Teleworking Policy. Currently, more than 50% of our staff – and all but one of our eligible Clerk’s Office employees who have DSL access – use the VPN to telework on a regular, recurring basis. The Clerk of Court and Judge Brown both participated in a live FJTN broadcast entitled Implementing Telework in the Judiciary: Successful Strategic Techniques and Tools.

• Judge Brown served as a judge in a Mock Advocacy Trial at the Vermont Law School.

• All staff completed 1.5 days of sexual harassment awareness training.

• All staff participated in a workshop on Serving the CM/ECF Customer.

• All staff participated in an advanced Myers-Briggs workshop, for the purpose of enhancing communications within the court.

• We began the process of updating our Local Rules.

• We began the process of switching over to electronic court reporting.

• We continued to hold the same number of regular monthly hearing calendars in Burlington as in Rutland.

• We handled a mega-case that was filed in April 2004.

• Judge Brown was appointed to the AO’s Bankruptcy Judges’ Advisory Group.

• Judge Brown continued to use the services of an outside attorney “liaison” to solicit the opinions and assessments of attorneys and other court users about the performance of the judge, customer service of the Clerk’s Office, and overall quality of the court’s service. The liaison then conveyed the information to Judge Brown in an anonymous and constructive fashion.

• Automation Manager Gary Gfeller’s term on the CM/ECF Working Group and MR Subcommittee was extended for an additional year.

• Our Systems Technology Administrator, Kevin Plew, was called to active duty in the Vermont National Guard and began serving a tour of duty in Southwest Asia.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara

Summary of Highlights and Activities

Statistical Year 2004 was once again another year during which case filings, both civil and criminal, continued to increase in the Western District. The District Court, while at a full complement of district judges and magistrate judges, nevertheless struggled significantly to keep pace with the workload demands placed upon this extraordinarily busy court.

As has been the case for more than a decade, the workload continues to be substantial. The District Court ranks first in the Circuit and 15^th in the nation with regard to terminations per judgeship. Although the latter statistic represents an 5 point shift over the preceding year’s ranking, it nevertheless reflects a significant rate of case disposition by this Court. The Western District ranks first in the Circuit and 20th nationally in civil filings. The District ranks 13th nationally and first in the Circuit with respect to criminal filings. In terms of pending cases per judgeship, the WDNY ranks 6^th nationally with 819 cases per judgeship. The Court ranks first in the Circuit with respect to the latter statistic. Overall, civil filings were up 2.6% over the preceding reporting period while criminal filings also increased by 16% for the same period. These total filing statistics place the Western District 8^th in the national rankings for this category.

No new judicial officer positions were created in the Western District during this reporting period. Although the Court has been working diligently towards reducing the significant caseload, more help is needed. The Judicial Conference of the United States has recognized this and has recommended, since 1992, that an additional judgeship be created for the Western District of New York. It is only recently that Congress began to create additional judgeships. Fortunately for the Western District, one additional permanent judgeship was included in the bill pending Congressional action in 2004. Weighted filings per judgeship, a statistical factor of great significance when justifying the need for new judgeships, places this Court first in the Circuit and 13th nationally. This district is well above the national average at 603 weighted filings per judgeship versus 588 nationally.

Plans proceed apace with one major construction project in the district. This project, originally designed as an annex to the Michael J. Dillon Courthouse in Buffalo, was subsequently determined to be impractical in light of the September 11th terrorist attacks and increased security regulations for new construction.

The General Services Administration (GSA), the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and the District Court concluded that the project should be scrapped in favor of a separate, stand alone Courthouse. The project’s ranking in the Judiciary’s five-year plan for courthouse construction projects for Fiscal Year 2003 resulted in a Congressional appropriation for site acquisition and design. These funds became available shortly after October 1, 2002. The General Services Administration has reached agreements with three property owners for the purchase of their parcels of land on which the new courthouse will be constructed. GSA has initiated condemnation proceedings against the remaining four properties which should be finalized in 2005. Demolition of existing structures and site preparation efforts should be getting underway in September, 2005. Construction funding, originally scheduled for appropriation in Fiscal Year 2006, has been delayed until Fiscal Year 2007. The GSA expects to begin construction in January, 2007. Occupancy is planned for November, 2009.

The site selected for the new courthouse is on Niagara Square, the main civic center of downtown Buffalo. The new building will provide courtrooms and chambers for all of the district and magistrate judges in the Buffalo Division, a new grand jury facility, work spaces for the United States Attorney’s Office and the Federal Public Defender, and offices for the United States Marshals Service, the District Court Clerk and U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services. The existing federal courthouse, which is a historical building, will be preserved in the new housing plan and will become the home of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court and other federal agencies. The Dillon Courthouse will continue to provide for the government’s needs well into the future.

The Rochester project possesses a lesser ranking in the Judiciary’s five-year courthouse construction program. Because of the Judiciary-imposed moratorium on new construction, funding for an annex to the Kenneth B. Keating Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse is not expected until Fiscal Year 2008 at the earliest. It is anticipated that the annex will house four district courtrooms and chambers plus related support office space for the Court and the U.S. Marshals Service. The annex will be connected to the existing facility by way of an atrium.

During Fiscal Year 2004, a number of judicial officers continued their service on national committees, advisory groups and organizations. U.S. Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott continued to serve on the District Court Advisory Council to the Administrative Office. Senior District Judge Michael A. Telesca continues his term on the Anti-Terrorist and Removal Court. U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan continued to serve as a member of the Second Circuit’s Library Committee. Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki was selected to serve as a member of the Board of Governors of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. Chief Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo, II continued to serve on the Second Circuit Judicial Council Committee on Bankruptcy. Chief Judge Ninfo continued his efforts to expand the Credit Abuse Resistance Education (CARE) program throughout the Second Circuit and nationally. CARE has received continued support from the Second Circuit. Additionally, Larry Friedman, Director of the Office of the United States Trustee, has highlighted CARE in the U.S. Trustee’s national Financial Education Program. The Federal Judicial Center also highlighted CARE by filming a half-hour feature for the FJC’s “Court to Court” program, scheduled to be shown in early 2005. Chief Judge Ninfo is pleased to report that CARE is now being presented to students or being developed in twenty-three states.

The District Court, selected as one of ten courts nationwide for early implementation of the new financial accounting system known as FAS₄T, continued to serve as a mentor court at the request of the Administrative Office. Most notably, during this reporting period, the District Court assisted the Administrative Office in the presentation and development of an implementation strategy for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals whereby the team was tasked with formally documenting issues and specific areas needing to be addressed prior to implementation.

The District Court continued to gain experience with the new Case Management and Electronic Case Files system (CM/ECF). The district ranks ninth among CM/ECF courts nationwide in attorney utilization of electronic filing, with 66% of potential achieved. 2014 attorneys have registered for e-filing through the CM/ECF system. The district’s ability to keep up with its increased workload is due in large part to chambers’ and operations staff utilization of the capabilities inherent in CM/ECF. The district’s Chief Deputy Clerk, who is the CM/ECF Project Manager, was appointed to the CM/ECF Working Group and is actively involved in that group’s discussions and decisions on enhancements to CM/ECF. The district sent three CM/ECF Implementation Team members to the Administrative Office’s August 2004 CM/ECF Operational Practices Workshop.

Magistrate Judges

All magistrate judges in the Western District of New York continue to be utilized to the fullest extent possible under existing law. Consent cases before magistrate judges are encouraged and each magistrate judge has a substantial number of consent cases pending. Virtually all discovery matters, including Rule 16 Conferences, are referred to magistrate judges. In many cases, magistrate judges also supervise much of the pre-trial criminal work, including motions. Magistrate judges are also used extensively in settlement conferences.

Because there are 14 state correctional facilities and numerous local correctional facilities in the District, the Court has a significant number of prisoner filings. The Court has successfully experimented with a system for direct assignment of prisoner petitions in habeas corpus cases to magistrate judges in equal proportion to those assigned to district judges. There is a very high rate of consents in these cases which allows for more efficient use of the magistrate judges.

Magistrate judges are an integral and indispensable part of the Court. They also participate with the district judges in all aspects of court management in the district.

Statistics

District Court

Civil filings for the year ending 9/30/2004 were 1741, which is a 2.6% increase over the prior year’s civil filings. Total criminal case filings for the year ending 9/30/2004 were 497, a 16% increase over the prior year. The district is first in the Circuit and 8^th nationally in percentage change in total filings (civil plus criminal).

In August 2004, a new District Court Case Weighting formula was implemented, which changed this district’s ranking from 19^th to 13^th in the nation in weighted filings per judgeship for 2004 filings. This change directly influenced the Judicial Conference’s recent decision to change their long-standing recommendation for an additional temporary judgeship for Buffalo to an additional permanent judgeship.

As of September 30, 2004, the district is first in the Circuit and 6^th in the nation in the number of pending cases per judgeship. Despite this caseload, the district is still first in the Circuit and 15^th in the country in the number of terminations per judgeship.

Prisoner case filings accounted for 28.3% of the total civil case filings for the reporting period. Prisoner cases account for 34.5% of the district’s pending civil caseload.

United States Bankruptcy Court

Western District of New York

Paul R. Warren, Clerk of Court, reports that during statistical year 2004 a total of 15,248 bankruptcy cases were filed in the Western District of New York, which represents a district-wide increase of 4.59%. The increase in bankruptcy filings in the Western District continued to exceed the national average, which declined by 2.6%. Chapter 7 cases continue to comprise the majority of cases in the district, representing approximately 75% of the total cases filed. A total of 610 Adversary Proceedings were filed during the reporting period, representing an increase of 15.75% from the previous statistical

According to Bankruptcy Program Indicators for the 2004 statistical year, the Court ranked nationally in the median range with respect to the number of case filings, in the average range for disposition time and in the 75^th percentile range for pending cases. The Court’s active case management of Adversary Proceedings has resulted in it being ranked first in the Circuit with respect to the average age of pending dischargeability cases and second in the Circuit with respect to the average age of other Adversary Proceedings. The Court continued to rank highly in the Circuit in these categories despite the continued increase in caseload and a continued decline in staffing levels.

Probation and Pretrial Services

Joseph A. Giacobbe, Chief Probation Officer, reports that during statistical year 2004, the U.S. Probation and Pretrial Services office continued in the development of its biennial strategic plan which focuses on striving for continuous improvement in every aspect of the functions involved in core areas such as pretrial services, presentence investigation and post sentence supervision. Staff members representing every job type are assigned to work toward the goals that support the outcome areas.

During this reporting period, staff participated in national initiatives. Mr. Giacobbe appeared on an FJTN program designed for chief probation officers addressing officer fitness for duty issues. A senior officer who sits on the Sentencing Commission Advisory Board participated as a panel member on sentencing issues at the National Sentencing Institute.

At the close of statistical year 2004, 861 cases were activated on pretrial release, representing a bail release rate of 67%. The percentage of pretrial defendants who successfully completed supervision was 85%. The majority of violations while on pretrial release were technical violations as opposed to re-arrests. The total number of pretrial service defendants received for supervision during this reporting period was 589, which includes pretrial diversion defendants. Of this number, 407 defendants were referred for substance abuse treatment. A total of 81 pretrial services defendants were referred for mental health treatment.

A total of 103 defendants were released on electronic monitoring surveillance at the pretrial services stage. Defendants paid $11,872 toward co-payment orders. The successful EMS completion rate is 85%. Use of pretrial EMS resulted in a potential savings to the government of $90,993.

The presentence investigation unit completed 703 investigations. District-wide, 70% of sentenced defendants were remanded, 30% were placed on probation, 23% were ordered to pay a fine and 18% were directed to make restitution.

During the reporting period, 1,329 post-sentence offenders were under supervision. Of this number, 1,223 offenders, or 95%, completed their term of supervision successfully. A total of 547 offenders received drug treatment, while 156 offenders received mental health treatment. A total of 335 offenders were placed under electronic monitoring conditions which produced a successful completion rate of 95%. Offenders paid $11,829 towards co-payment orders. The use of post sentence EMS in the district resulted in an approximate savings to the government of $71,961. A total of 4,500 hours of community service were completed by offenders. Restitution collections totaled $1,099,836. Fine collections totaled $112,868 during the same time period.

Automation

District Court

Integrated technology support for the Court continues to evolve as the emphasis on automated systems becomes more pronounced. Additionally, the increased budget pressures require the court to do more with less resources being made available. The IT staff are striving to meet these challenges.

During the past several years, the Court has embarked on an effort to reduce telecommunications costs across the district. In 2004, the District Court and Bankruptcy Court in the Rochester divisional office consolidated telephone systems and dropped GSA provided dial tone services in favor of a less costly local area provider. The savings achieved from eliminating GSA as the local telephone provider in both Buffalo (eliminated in 2003) and Rochester is conservatively estimated to $3,700 per month. In addition to these savings, the District Court and Bankruptcy Court IT staff jointly maintain and support the telephone systems which eliminates the need to incur thousands of dollars annually in third party maintenance costs. The Court has also begun to explore the use of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP) technology within each divisional office in an effort to reduce cabling costs and maintenance while at the same time improving telecommunication flexibility.

The Court has also embraced the Telephone Interpreting Program (TIP) to reduce overall interpreter costs. Wireless headsets have been installed in the magistrate judge courtrooms providing access to the TIP provider sites.

Long term courtroom technology projects in Judge Larimer’s and Judge Skretny’s courtrooms have been completed and the systems are now fully functional and greatly utilized.

The Second Circuit’s Committee on Automation has approved the district’s remote access plan for access to the Virtual Private Network (VPN). The IT staff have begun to deploy the necessary software to enable all judges and senior administrators to connect to the Judiciary’s Data Communications Network (DCN) from remote locations. Given the pressure from Congress to reduce costs through telecommuting, the VPN shows great promise for achieving further reductions in operational costs. Expansion of the VPN to users other than judicial officers and senior managers will improve support efforts and give greater flexibility to the rest of the court staff.

CM/ECF has been operational for one full year. Although the IT department continues to be faced with compatibility issues with browsers and printing, on the whole, the project seems to be a great success. While the ability to obtain a variety statistical reports disappeared when the conversion from ICMS to CM/ECF was made, the IT staff have been working diligently to replace the quality control and statistical reporting capability through the use of Crystal Reports and PERL software packages.

Throughout the development of the 50% construction documents for the new Buffalo courthouse, the IT staff have played an integral role in planning for the technology needs of the new facility. The staff have been working directly with the architects, the AO’s technology professionals, and their contractors to insure that all available technology enhancements are considered and provided for in the designs. These efforts will continue throughout 2005 as the architects develop the drawings to the 100% construction ready state.

Bankruptcy Court

The Bankruptcy Court continued to focus its IT efforts and resources on CM/ECF. Mandatory electronic filing for attorneys became effective October 1, 2004. During Statistical Year 2004, CM/ECF attorney-filer training was provided by the court to 483 attorneys, as compared to 130 attorneys trained during the previous year. In addition, the Court issued e-filing registration accounts to 661 attorneys, as compared to 90 attorneys issued registration accounts during the previous year. In addition, during 2004, the Court adopted a standing order to permit related e-filings by institutional creditors. As a result, 261 creditor/limited participant filers were registered and began to file claims and claim related documents electronically.. The Court installed computers and scanners in the public intake areas to assist registered users in complying with the court’s electronic filing requirement. Electronic filing appears to be successful, as is evidenced by the more than 350,000 documents, consisting of over 1,300,000 pages, electronically filed during the reporting period. The Court implemented two release cycles of CM/ECF and is currently using version 2.6. The Bankruptcy Court, in partnership with the District of Delaware Bankruptcy Court, is proud to have developed a significant enhancement to the CM/ECF program which the courts named “Reduced Paper Module” (RPM). RPM was developed to eliminate redundant paper notices in response to negative feedback voiced by practicing attorneys in many districts nationwide since the release of CM/ECF. By eliminating the redundant and often unwanted paper notices, RPM has the added potential to generate significant postage and noticing cost savings for the Judiciary. Bankruptcy courts have been encouraged by the Bankruptcy Noticing Working Group to implement RPM.

Financial Operations

District Court

The financial department experienced many challenges and achieved numerous accomplishments in the past year. The greatest challenges involved personnel-related issues. The continuing vacancies of one part-time CJA Clerk and one part-time Financial Assistant were intensified by two extended absences (4 months and 6 months respectively) and one termination resulting in the transfer of one full-time position from the operations staff. This reduced staffing was extremely demanding and many extra hours were devoted to maintaining relatively current workloads.

Despite this, workload measures indicate the volume of financial transactions continued to peak during fiscal year 2004. Fees forwarded to the United States Treasury, including payments to the Crime Victims Fund, totaled over $6.3 million representing a 112% increase over the prior year, with the actual number of receipts issued (10,654) increasing by 2%. This growth appears to be the result of increased payments received from the Bureau of Prisons each month, which arose by 13%, as well as an increase in joint and several restitution payments which increased by 11%. Additionally, registry deposits grew by 256% with $4.5 million now being collateralized through the Federal Reserve.

Nothing on the horizon signals a slow down of the surging trends in criminal monetary debt statistics experienced in the past few years, which remains a key initiative within the department. The volume of criminal debt activity overseen by the financial staff significantly increased again this year particularly due to joint and several restitution cases. The current caseload involves the monitoring, tracking and collections on debt totaling almost $30 million for these types of cases alone which represents an 11% increase in active cases over last year. Furthermore, continuing efforts with the U.S. Attorney and Probation Offices to resolve issues immediately after sentencing have resulted in the ability to increase total restitution disbursements by 83%. Overall, the financial department is responsible for monitoring, tracking and paying over 12,600 victims on a regular basis.

During the year, the Court’s financial staff processed over 6,100 payment vouchers and issued 11,329 checks representing a decrease of 13% primarily due to limited spending within the Judiciary’s current budget environment. Combined Registry and Treasury disbursements, however, exceeded $10 million which is actually an increase of 57%. This increase results directly from the receipt and transfer of $3.5 million to our local depositary, Greater Buffalo Savings Bank, for interpleader funds in two pending civil matters.

The Court’s Criminal Justice Act program maintained its commitment to the timely processing of CJA payment vouchers. A total of 414 vouchers were certified for payment during the year, with over $1.3 million being paid to attorneys, experts and related service providers on behalf of indigent defendants. This activity represented increases of 7% and 1% respectively primarily due to the authorization of interim payments to multiple panel attorneys assigned in the death penalty case, USA vs. Diaz, et al.

Last year also brought many FAS₄T-related activities (Financial Accounting System for Tomorrow). This district assisted the Administrative Office in the presentation and development of an implementation strategy for the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals whereby the team was tasked with formally documenting issues and specific areas needing to be addressed prior to implementation. During March, staff successfully completed the conversion to FAS₄T Release 3.7.3.2, as well as two subsequent versions 2.2 and 2.3 a few months later. At the request of the Administrative Office, staff also completed the testing of a new accounting field for FJC travel, and provided recommendations for modifications prior to national release in June. That same month, the setup, testing, and implementation of a new document type for Bankruptcy Court’s case-related payments was completed.

Technological advancements were also realized in the area of Treasury deposits. Early in the year, financial staff successfully implemented one of the Department of Treasury’s newest cash management tools, CA$H-LINK II, which provides detailed information related to transactions processed by financial institutions for deposits. This has allowed staff to investigate deposit differences between the Court and Treasury’s accounting records. A procedure manual was subsequently developed for accessing the system, researching the database, and generating the necessary reports now used on a daily basis.

Additionally, staff was asked to formally review and offer suggestions to the Administrative Office on two exposure drafts for revisions to the Guide to Judiciary Policies and Procedures. The first draft pertained to the Criminal Justice Act reflected in Volume I, Chapter VII, and the other draft applied to financial management issues, specifically on the subject matters regarding receipting, disbursing, and reporting, also under Chapter VII.

The financial staff also received numerous hours of training that addressed the newest release of CA$H-LINK II; FAS₄T migration training; human resources planning in austere budget times; and implementing telework in the Judiciary through successful strategic techniques and tools, offered through the FJTN. Additionally, the Financial Operations Supervisor was invited to attend the Department of Justice Criminal Collection Issues Regional Training program offered to the 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd Circuits. Many fresh ideas were gained that have already proven useful to this district.

It goes without saying that throughout the busyness experienced this year, the financial staff was never willing, under any circumstance, to compromise the quality of services and support provided to the judges, the bar, and the public.

Bankruptcy Court

The Bankruptcy Court continued to adopt initiatives intended to cultivate a productive stewardship environment, with regular financial, budget and procurement briefings between the court and senior administrative staff. The Court’s inventory control system was the subject of a Court to Court program taped by the FJC in October, 2004 (to be aired in 2005). Several courts have reported very positive property management audit experiences when using the Court’s inventory control system. It is noted that the software used for this program is free-ware, an important consideration in the present fiscal climate. Four clerk’s office staff members participated in the first phase of the Contracting Officer Certification Program, by attending a week-long program sponsored by the Second Circuit. The Court’s goal is to obtain contracting officer certification by the January, 2006 deadline established by the AO. During the reporting period, there was a significant increase in the use of credit cards by attorneys for payment of filing fees, as those attorneys took advantage of the ability to e-file documents. Approximately 40% of all fees collected were paid by attorneys using credit cards, nearly double the amount collected in the previous year. The decline in payments by check and cash to pay filing fees has allowed the Court to discontinue the use of an armored car service for transportation of negotiable instruments.

JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION

JUDICIAL COUNCIL OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT

Top row, left to right:

Circuit Judge Chester J. Straub

Chief Judge Robert N. Chatigny, District of Connecticut

Circuit Judge Guido Calabresi

Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs

Circuit Judge Rosemary S. Pooler

Chief Judge William Sessions III, District of Vermont

Circuit Judge Robert D. Sack

Bottom row, left to right:

Chief Judge Michael B. Mukasey, Southern District of New York

Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes

Chief Circuit Judge John M. Walker, Jr.

Chief Judge Edward R. Korman, Eastern District of New York

Chief Judge Richard J. Arcara, Western District of New York

Absent:

Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Northern District of New York

SECOND CIRCUIT JUDGES SERVING ON U.S. JUDICIAL

CONFERENCE COMMITTEES AND SPECIAL COURTS

MARCH 2005

John M. Walker, Jr.	Court of Appeals	The Executive Committee
Jed S. Rakoff	S.D.N.Y.	Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy System
Victor Marrero	S.D.N.Y.	Committee on the Budget
Denis R. Hurley	E.D.N.Y.	Committee on Codes of Conduct
Sonia Sotomayor	Court of Appeals	Committee on Court Administration & Case Management
Norman A. Mordue	N.D.N.Y.	Committee on Criminal Law
John Gleeson	E.D.N.Y.	Committee on Defender Services
Janet C. Hall	Connecticut	Committee on Federal-State Jurisdiction
Robert D. Sack	Court of Appeals	Committee on Financial Disclosure
Rosemary S. Pooler	Court of Appeals	Committee on Information Technology
Janet Bond Arterton	Connecticut	Committee on International Judicial Relations
Robert A. Katzmann	Court of Appeals	Committee on the Judicial Branch
William K. Sessions, III	Vermont	Committee on the Judicial Branch
Nicholas G. Garaufis	E.D.N.Y.	Committee on Judicial Resources
Nina Gershon	E.D.N.Y.	Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System
Ralph K. Winter, Chair	Court of Appeals	Committee to Review Circuit Council Conduct & Disability Orders
J. Garvan Murtha	Vermont	Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure
Mark R. Kravitz	Connecticut	Committee on Rules of Practice & Procedure
Laura Taylor Swain	S.D.N.Y.	Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules
José Cabranes	Court of Appeals	Advisory Committee on Civil Rules
Shira A. Scheindlin	S.D.N.Y	Advisory Committee on Civil Rules
David G. Trager	E.D.N.Y.	Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules
David G. Trager	Ex-Officio E.D.N.Y.	Advisory Committee on Evidence Rules
Richard C. Wesley	Court of Appeals	Committee on Security & Facilities

COMMITTEES OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE UNITED STATES

Sidney H. Stein	S.D.N.Y.	Bankruptcy Committee
Rosemary S. Pooler, Chair	Court of Appeals	Information Systems & Technology Committee
José A. Cabranes, Chair	Court of Appeals	Library Committee
Richard C. Wesley, Chair	Court of Appeals	Space & Facilities Committee
Carol Amon, Chair	E.D.N.Y.	Committee on Judges’ Obligation under 28 U.S.C. § 455
Robert D. Sack, Chair	Court of Appeals	History & Commemorative Events Committee
John M. Walker, Jr., Chair	Court of Appeals	Public Affairs Committee
Alfred V. Covello, Chair	District of Connecticut	Committee on Local Holding Procedure for Filing Motions
Robert N. Chatigny, Chair	District of Connecticut	Connecticut Federal/State Judicial Council
William K. Sessions, III, Chair	District of Vermont	Vermont Federal/State Judicial Council
George B. Daniels, Chair	S.D.N.Y.	New York Federal/State Judicial Council

SECOND CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AND JUDICIAL COUNCIL

The Judicial Conference of the Second Judicial Circuit is held pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 333. It is composed of the Judges of the Circuit and representatives of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, The Federal Judicial Center, the bar associations and the law schools in the Circuit, and other invited representatives of the Bench and Bar. The 2004 judges-only Circuit-wide Judicial Conference was cancelled in an effort to reduce burdens on the judiciary’s national budget.

On September 29, 2004 Chief Judge Walker, Second Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, and New Hampshire Superior Court Judge Patricia C. Coffey, Circuit Trustee of the American Inns of Courts Foundation, presented the third annual Second Circuit American Inns of Court Professionalism Award to Mr. Thomas J. Concannon. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs, who chaired the selection committee, introduced Mr. Concannon and explained to the audience the basis for his selection by the Committee.

Principal items of discussion at the Judicial Council meetings during the year included judicial misconduct complaints, the states of the dockets of the courts of the Circuit, and Circuit-wide space, security and automation issues. The Council was especially concerned about the Judiciary’s fiscal situation. In 2004, the judiciary laid off about 1,300 employees out of a nationwide workforce of 22,000. The largest expenditures, nationally, are employee salaries and the cost of courthouse space rentals. The Council determined that it was necessary to proceed with a new leasehold in Middletown, New York. The space will be occupied by a part-time Magistrate Judge, the Probation office for the Southern District of New York and the United States Marshal Service. Construction on the Buffalo courthouse was delayed to seek construction monies in FY2007. The District of Connecticut received Council permission to continue to hold space in the Waterbury, CT facility until such time as it was determined whether Senior Judge Dominic Squatrito’s replacement would be located in Waterbury or Hartford.

The Council approved the closure of three video conferencing sites in the Second Circuit. The sites are: Central Islip, New York; New Haven, Connecticut; and Brattleboro, Vermont.

The Council approved the request to create an independent Vermont Federal Public Defender Office. The Federal Public Defender (FPD) for the Northern District of New York oversees the District of Vermont as part of a combined office. Chief Judge William Session provided the Council with a statistical analysis of the work in the Vermont office which support the request for an independent facility. The caseload is sufficient to justify the split and Chief Judge Scullin concurred.

PROTECTING THE QUALITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

Attorney Discipline

Attorney discipline in the Second Circuit is carried out pursuant to local rules adopted by the individual courts.

At the appellate level, the Second Circuit Committee on Admissions and Grievances was formed to assist the Court of Appeals in administering Local Rule 46(f)-(h). Pursuant to Local Rule 46(f), in 2004, the Court took reciprocal action to enforce disciplinary orders entered in other jurisdictions against two members of the Court of Appeals’ bar. The Court disbarred two attorneys.

In the District of Connecticut, Local Rule 3 provides for a grievance committee with nine members, who serve for three-year terms. Two attorneys appointed by the Court serve as counsel to the committee. The Court opened 17 grievance cases; 17 grievance cases were closed. Of the 17 closed cases, eight were dismissed; suspension orders entered in seven cases; one resulted in a resignation and one resulted in disbarment. At year-end, 19 grievances were pending.

Attorney discipline in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York is governed by a local rule common to the two districts. Effective in April, 1997, the operative provision is Local Civil Rule (1.5). Pursuant to subsection (a) of the rule, the Southern District of New York has established a committee on grievances composed of six district judges and one magistrate judge, which is chaired by Judge Jed S. Rakoff. In addition, a panel of attorneys is available to advise and assist the committee on grievances by investigating complaints and serving on hearing panels. In 2004, there were 77 disbarments, 35 suspensions, four interim suspensions, eight public censures and nine reinstatements in the Southern District. The Court had 7 cases pending at the end of the calendar year. There were 35 Statements of Discipline issued to attorneys.

In the Eastern District of New York, 87 disciplinary orders were issued in 2004: 57 disbarments, 28 suspensions, and two censures. Chief Judge Edward R. Korman is responsible for oversight of attorney disciplinary matters and is assisted by a committee of three judges.

There were no disbarments or suspensions in the Western District of New York. The District had five attorney resignations.

During 2004, the District of Vermont had a total of six attorney suspensions and two separate public reprimands. No disbarments occurred during the year. All attorney discipline actions which occurred within the district involved reciprocal proceedings taken in conjunction with the State of Vermont’s Professional Conduct Board and no disciplinary proceedings originated solely within the District of Vermont’s federal Bar.

In calendar year 2004 the Northern District had the following attorney discipline cases: five attorneys were disbarred; thirteen attorneys were suspended; a stay of suspension was issued for four attorneys; two attorneys were censured; two attorneys were sanctioned; six attorneys were reinstated; and three attorneys resigned.

Judicial Misconduct

The Judicial Council’s Reform and Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1981, 28 U.S.C. §372C), creates a mechanism for addressing complaints of judicial misconduct or disability. The statute’s objective is to correct conditions that interfere with the proper administration of justice. To facilitate that end, the Act sets out procedures for reviewing allegations that a federal judge “has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts “or” is unable to discharge all the duties of office by reason of physical or mental disability.”

Under the Act, the Judicial Council of the Circuit has primary responsibility for resolving complaints. The Second Circuit’s Judicial Council has adopted Rules Governing Complaints Against Judicial Officers that closely follow a national set of “illustrative” rules. The Local Rules, together with the forms to be used in filing complaints, are available from the Court of Appeals Clerk’s Office.

Complaints are filed with the Clerk of the Court of Appeals and are reviewed by the Chief Judge of the Circuit. The statute permits the Chief Judge, after a timely review, to dismiss complaints that are not covered by the statute, such as “frivolous” complaints and those “directly related” to the merits of a decision or ruling. The Circuit Executive’s Office conducts initial staff review on behalf of the Chief Judge.

Complainants may petition for review of the Chief Judge’s dismissal orders. Petitions for review are considered by a six-member panel of the Judicial Council. The full membership of the Council will consider a petition for review upon the vote of any member of the review panel.

If a complaint is certified by the Chief Judge for investigation, it is sent to a statutory Committee on Judicial Conduct. After the Committee reports, the Judicial Council conducts any additional investigation it considers necessary and then may take appropriate action. Options available to the Council include dismissing the complaint, certifying the judge’s disability, asking the judge to retire, temporarily suspending new case assignments, and public or private censure or reprimand. 28 U.S.C. §372(c)(6)(B) &(C). The Judicial Council may also refer the entire matter to the Judicial Conference of the United States.

During 2004, 83 judicial misconduct complaints were filed in the Second Circuit.

OPERATIONAL SUPPORT

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

2004 FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES REPORT

October 1, 2003 - September 30, 2004

The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is made up of the offices of the Circuit Executive, the Clerk, Legal Affairs, the Circuit Library, and the Second Circuit Judges and their Chambers. The Equal Opportunity and Employment Resolution Plan for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit became effective January 1, 1999, replacing the Court’s Affirmative Action Plan which was in effect since 1980. The Court’s Equal Opportunity and Employment Resolution Plan is adapted from the Federal Judiciary Model Employee Dispute Resolution Plan. The Plan applies to all judicial and nonjudicial officers and employees of the Court, to applicants for employment with the Court, and to former employees with respect to events occurring during their employment. It specifically does not apply to externs, to law clerks of judicial officers or applicants for such positions, to private attorneys who represent indigent defendants under the Criminal Justice Act or applicants for such positions, or to any other individual who is not an officer or employee of the Court. The Court’s Plan reflects its long-standing objective of providing a safe work environment and the widest possible employment and advancement opportunities, objectives shared by all courts in this Circuit. During this reporting period, no changes were made to the Second Circuit Court’s Plan.

As of September 30, 2004 there were 24 judges on board and 257 personnel employed by the Court of Appeals in the offices of the Circuit Executive, the Clerk, Legal Affairs, the Circuit Library, and chambers’ staff of the Court of Appeals judges. Of that number, 130 were male and 151 were female. The total number of African Americans represented was 52, Hispanics 26, and there were 14 Court personnel who were identified as Asian. The minority representation in the Court decreased by 2% to 33%. Two percent of Court personnel reported disabilities, one employee retired and no EDR complaints were filed during this reporting period.

Women occupied 54% of all positions in the Court and 43% of all professional positions. Among all the professional positions, African-Americans, Hispanics, and Asians comprised 12%.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals continues to make concerted efforts to recruit qualified minority and women candidates for positions at all levels. Greater access to technology, specifically access to the Internet, has enhanced the Court’s ability to reach out to a wider population. In order to keep current with advancements and technology, the Court continues to update its Intranet and Internet website.

In addition to posting position vacancies in nationwide and local publications, the Court’s recruitment efforts are directed toward both local and national educational institutions. In recruiting for law clerk positions in the Office of Legal Affairs, the Court of Appeals participates in on-campus career days and interviewing at local law schools.

The Second Circuit’s internship program continued to expand to local high schools, colleges, law schools and community programs. The Court of Appeals participates in these institutions’ placement programs and, in doing so, provides interns with an understanding of the Court and its operations as well as an opportunity to develop marketable skills. In fact, many of the interns obtain educational credits through their internships with the Court. In 2004, the Court of Appeals and several district courts throughout the Second Circuit hosted “Take Our Children to Work Day” programs and, in conjunction with the New York Women’s Bar Association, opened the program to high schools within each district. During the year, the Court of Appeals also provided opportunities for students in high schools and law schools to tour the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse and visit with members of the Court.

Table 39
FAIR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES
2004

		GENDER		RACE
SECOND CIRCUIT	TOTAL	MALE	FEMALE	WHITE	AFRICAN	HISPANIC	ASIAN	NATIVE	PACIFIC	DISABLED
COURT OF APPEALS					AMERICAN			AMERICAN	ISLANDER
	281	130	151	189	52	26	14	0	0	7
% of Total	100%	46%	54%	67%	19%	5%	0.0%	0.0%	0%	2%
DIST. CT. CONN.	273	81	192	218	36	14	4	0	1	1
% of Total	100%	30%	70%	80%	13%	5%	1.5%	0%	.5%	.5%
EASTERN DIST. NY	673	228	445	405	144	80	43	0	1	1
% of Total	100%	34%	66%	60%	21%	12%	6.5%	0%	.5%	.5%
NORTHERN DIST. NY	263	104	159	246	8	6	2	1	0	9
% of Total	100%	40%	60%	93%	3%	2%	1.5%	.5%	0%	3%
SOUTHERN DIST. NY	805	376	429	473	173	105	53	0	1	8
% of Total	100%	47%	53%	59%	21.5%	13%	6%	0%	.5%	1%
DIST. CT. VERMONT	69	30	39	68	0	0	1	0	0	0
% of Total	100%	43%	57%	98.5%	0%	0%	1.5%	0%	0%	0%
WESTERN DIST. NY	251	97	154	199	20	18	11	3	0	4
% of Total	100%	39%	61%	79%	8%	7%	4.5%	1.5%	0%	1.5%

SECOND CIRCUI TOTALS
CIRCUIT WIDE	2615	1046	1569	1798	433	249	128	4	3	29
% of Total	100%	40%	60%	69%	17%	9%	5%	0%	0%	1%

ALL DISTRICTS	2334	916	1418	1609	381	223	114	4	3	22
% of Total	100%	39%	61%	69%	16%	9.5%	5.5%	0%	0%	.1%

COURT OF APPEALS	281	130	151	189	52	26	14	0	0	7
% of Total	100%	46%	54%	67%	19%	5%	0%	0%	0%	2%

JUDGES AND JUDGESHIPS *

Judgeship Summary

District	Auth. Judges	Active Judges	Vacancies	Senior Judges	Bank'cy Judges	Magistrate Judges
Connecticut	8	7	1	6	4***	5
EDNY	15	13	2	8	8***	14
NDNY	5	4	0	3	2	6**
SDNY	28	28	0	21	9***	15***
Vermont	2	2	0	0	1	1
WDNY	4	4	0	3	3	6***
-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	----------------------
Total Dist. Ct.	62	59	3	41	27	47
Total Court of Appeals	13	13	0	10	--	--
-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	-------------------	----------------------
Total 2nd Circuit	75	72	3	51	27	47

*As of May 1, 2005

**Includes part-time magistrate judges, and/or recalled magistrate judge

***Includes recalled retired bankruptcy judges

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT*

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse

40 Foley Square

New York, New York 10007

John M. Walker, Jr., Chief Judge
Dennis Jacobs	Sonia Sotomayor
Guido Calabresi	Robert A. Katzmann
José A. Cabranes	Barrington D. Parker, Jr.
Chester J. Straub	Reena Raggi
Rosemary S. Pooler	Richard C. Wesley
Robert D. Sack	Peter W. Hall

Senior Judges
Wilfred Feinberg	Richard J. Cardamone
James L. Oakes	Ralph K. Winter
Thomas J. Meskill	Roger J. Miner
Jon O. Newman	Joseph M. McLaughlin
Amalya L. Kearse	Pierre N. Leval

Karen Greve Milton, Circuit Executive
John Coffey, Deputy Circuit Executive
Janice D. Kish, Assistant Circuit Executive, Administration
Raouf Farag, Acting Assistant Circuit Executive, Automation & Technology
Scott Teman, Assistant Circuit Executive, Space & Facilities
Evelyn Ortiz, Director of Human Resources
Richard K. George, Administrative Services Manager
Elizabeth Cronin, Director of Legal Affairs
Roseann B. MacKechnie, Clerk of Court
Margaret J. Evans, Circuit Librarian

* As of May 1, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

District of Connecticut*

141 Church Street

New Haven, Connecticut 06510

(203) 773-2140

Robert N. Chatigny, Chief Judge
Alvin Thompson	Christopher F. Droney
Janet Bond Arterton	Stefan R. Underhill
Janet C. Hall	Mark R. Kravitz

Senior Judges
Ellen Bree Burns	Alan H. Nevas
Warren W. Eginton	Alfred V. Covello
Peter C. Dorsey	Dominic J. Squatrito

Bankruptcy Judges
Albert S. Dabrowski, Chief Judge
Robert L. Krechevsky**	Alan H. W. Shiff
Lorraine Murphy Weil
Magistrate Judges
Thomas P. Smith	Donna F. Martinez
Joan Glazer Margolis	William Garfinkel
Holly Fitzsimmons

Kevin F. Rowe, Clerk of District Court
Debra Hunt, Clerk of Bankruptcy Court
Maria Rodrigues McBride, Chief Probation Officer
Thomas G. Dennis, Federal Public Defender
Barbara Close, Branch Librarian, Hartford, CT
Carole Martin, Branch Librarian, New Haven, CT

*As of May 1, 2005

**Recalled Retired Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

Eastern District of New York*

225 Cadman Plaza East

Brooklyn, New York 11201

Phone: (718) 260-2260

Fax: (718) 260-2622

Edward R. Korman, Chief Judge
Raymond J. Dearie	John Gleeson
Carol B. Amon	Nina Gershon
David G. Trager	Nicholas G. Garaufis
Joanna Seybert	Sandra J. Feuerstein
Frederic Block	Sandra L. Townes
Allyne R. Ross	Dora L. Irizarry

Senior Judges
Jack B. Weinstein	I. Leo Glasser
Thomas C. Platt	Leonard D. Wexler
Sterling Johnson, Jr.	Denis R. Hurley
Charles P. Sifton	Arthur D. Spatt

Bankruptcy Judges
Conrad B. Duberstein**, Chief Judge
Jerome Feller	Stan Bernstein
Dorothy D.T. Eisenberg**	Carla E. Craig
Melanie L. Cyganowski	Dennis E. Milton
	Elizabeth S. Stong

Magistrate Judges
Michael L. Orenstein, Chief Magistrate Judge
Steven M. Gold	Robert M. Levy
Marilyn D. Go	E. Thomas Boyle
Arlene R. Lindsay	Cheryl L. Pollak
Roanne L. Mann	William D. Wall
Joan M. Azrack	Lois Bloom
Viktor V. Pohorelsky	James Orenstein
	Kiyo A. Matsumoto

James E. Ward, Jr. District Executive
Robert C. Heinemann, Clerk of District Court
Joseph P. Hurley, Clerk of Bankruptcy Court
Tony Garoppolo, Chief Probation Officer
Cynthia Lawyer, Chief Pretrial Services Officer
John Saiz, Branch Librarian, Brooklyn, NY
Astrid Stalis, Branch Librarian, Central Islip, NY

*As of May 1, 2005

**Recalled Retired Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

Northern District of New York*

James T. Foley Courthouse

445 Broadway

Albany, NY 11207

Phone: (518) 257-1800

Fax: (518) 257-1801

Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief Judge
Lawrence E. Kahn	Norman A. Mordue
David N. Hurd	Gary L. Sharpe

Senior Judges
Thomas J. McAvoy	Howard G. Munson
Neal P. McCurn

Bankruptcy Judges
Stephen D. Gerling, Chief Judge
Robert E. Littlefield

Magistrate Judges
Gustave J. DiBianco	David E. Peebles
David R. Homer	Randolph F. Treece
George H. Lowe	Larry A. Kudrle***

Lawrence Baerman, Clerk of District Court
Richard G. Zeh, Sr., Clerk of Bankruptcy Court
Paul W. DeFelice, Chief Probation Officer
Alexander Bunin, Federal Public Defender

*As of May 1, 2005

***Part-Time

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Southern District of New York*

United States Courthouse

500 Pearl Street

New York, New York 10007

Phone: (212) 805-0500

Fax: (212) 805-0383

Michael B. Mukasey, Chief Judge
Charles L. Brieant	Alvin K. Hellerstein
Kimba M. Wood	Richard M. Berman
Loretta A. Preska	Colleen McMahon
Deborah A. Batts	William H. Pauley, III
Lewis A. Kaplan	Naomi Reice Buchwald
Denise Cote	Victor Marrero
Denny Chin	George B. Daniels
Shira A. Scheindlin	Gerard E. Lynch
Sidney H. Stein	Laura Taylor Swain
Barbara S. Jones	P. Kevin Castel
Jed S. Rakoff	Richard J. Holwell
Richard Conway Casey	Stephen C. Robinson
	Kenneth M. Karas
	Paul A. Crotty

Senior Judges
Charles M. Metzner	Robert W. Sweet
Constance Baker Motley	Leonard B. Sand
Morris E. Lasker	John E. Sprizzo
Thomas P. Griesa	Shirley Wohl Kram
Robert L. Carter	John F. Keenan
Kevin Thomas Duffy	Peter K. Leisure
William C. Conner	Louis L. Stanton
Richard Owen	Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
Gerard L. Goettel	Robert P. Patterson, Jr.
Charles S. Haight, Jr.	Lawrence M. McKenna
	Harold Baer, Jr.

Bankruptcy Judges
Stuart M. Bernstein, Chief Judge
Burton R. Lifland**	Cecelia G. Morris
Prudence Carter Beatty	Robert E. Gerber
Adlai Hardin, Jr.	Allan L. Gropper
Arthur J. Gonzalez	Robert D. Drain

Magistrate Judges
Andrew Peck, Chief Magistrate Judge
Theodore W. Katz	Douglas F. Eaton
Michael H. Dolinger	Henry B. Pitman
James C. Francis, IV	George A. Yanthis
Mark D. Fox	Kevin N. Fox
Martin R. Goldberg***	Frank Maas
Ronald L. Ellis	Debra Freeman
Lisa Margaret Smith	Gabriel W. Gorenstein

Clifford P. Kirsch, District Executive
J. Michael McMahon, Clerk of District Court
Kathleen Farrell-Willoughby, Clerk of Bankruptcy Court
Chris Stanton, Chief Probation Officer
Dennis Spitzer, Chief Pretrial Services Officer
Kenneth Edmonds, Branch Librarian

*As of May 1, 2005

**Retired Recall Judge

***Part-Time

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

District of Vermont*

506 Federal Building and Courthouse

Burlington, Vermont 05402-0945

William Sessions, III, Chief Judge
U.S. District Judge
J. Garvan Murtha
Bankruptcy Judge
Colleen A. Brown
Magistrate Judge
Jerome J. Niedermeier
Richard P. Wasko, Clerk of District Court
Thomas J. Hart, Clerk of Bankruptcy Court
Philip K. Albertson, Chief Probation Officer
Vacant, Federal Public Defender

*As of May 1, 2005

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTS

Western District of New York*

U.S. Courthouse

68 Court Street

Buffalo, New York 14202

(716) 551-4211

Richard J. Arcara, Chief Judge
William M. Skretny	David G. Larimer
Charles J. Siragusa

Senior Judges
John T. Curtin	Michael A. Telesca
John T. Elfvin

Bankruptcy Judges
John C. Ninfo, II, Chief Judge
Michael J. Kaplan	Carl L. Bucki

Magistrate Judges
Leslie G. Foschio	H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr.
Hugh B. Scott	Marian W. Payson
Jonathan W. Feldman	Victor E. Bianchini**

Rodney C. Early, Clerk of District Court
Paul R. Warren, III, Clerk of Bankruptcy Court
Joseph A. Giacobbe, Chief Probation Officer
Joseph B. Mistrett, Federal Public Defender
Diane Zientek, Branch Librarian, Buffalo, NY

*As of May 1, 2005

** Recalled Retired Judge

THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF THE UNITED STATES

Judicial Status Update*

New Appointments
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Circuit Judge Peter W. Hall
Southern District of New York	District Judge Kenneth M. Karas
Eastern District of New York	District Judge Sandra L. Townes
Eastern District of New York	District Judge Dora L. Irizarry
Eastern District of New York	Magistrate Judge James L. Orenstein
Eastern District of New York	Magistrate Judge Kiyo Matsumoto

Reappointments
Southern District of New York	Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman
District of Connecticut	Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel

Senior Status
District of Connecticut	District Judge Dominic J. Squatrito
Southern District of New York	District Judge Harold Baer, Jr.

Retirements
Southern District of New York	Bankruptcy Judge Cornelius Blackshear

Deaths
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit	Circuit Judge Ellsworth VanGraafeiland
Southern District of New York	District Judge Whitman Knapp
Southern District of New York	District Judge Milton Pollack
Eastern District of New York	Magistrate Judge A. Simon Chrein

*As of May 1, 2005

STATISTICS*

*Adobe Acrobat Reader Required