From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Casanova

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 2, 1973
472 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973)

Opinion

No. 72-2626.

January 2, 1973.

L. M. Giovanini (argued), Beaverton, Ore., for defendant-appellant.

Michael L. Morehouse, Asst. U.S. Atty. (argued), Sidney I. Lezak, U.S. Atty., Portland, Ore., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon.

Before TRASK, GOODWIN, and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.


A bonding company appeals a district court judgment of forfeiture after the person bonded failed to appear for trial. Notice to the bonding company was adequate under Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(f)(3). The judgment was valid.

After the forfeiture, the fugitive was recaptured in a distant state, and the bonding company sought to have the matter reopened. The fugitive was not returned to the District of Oregon. The government had been put to considerable expense and had been forced to drop a charge because of the failure to appear. The district court declined to vacate the judgment. Although the court could have granted partial remission of the forfeiture had it seen fit to do so, it was not bound to grant relief. We find no abuse of discretion.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

United States v. Casanova

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Jan 2, 1973
472 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973)
Case details for

United States v. Casanova

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE. v. JACK HENRY CASANOVA, ALSO…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Jan 2, 1973

Citations

472 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973)

Citing Cases

United States v. Stanley

In determining whether or not to grant relief from a forfeiture, a court has wide discretion. See United…

United States v. Magallon

, it is not bound to so grant relief. United States v. Casanova, 472 F.2d 1223, 1223 (9th Cir.…