United States v. Ramon Navarrete-Martinez, and Concerning Douglas Riddle, Professional Surety-Appellant, 776 F.2d 887, 10th Cir. (1985)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States v. Ramon Navarrete-Martinez, and Concerning Douglas Riddle, Professional Surety-Appellant, 776 F.2d 887, 10th Cir. (1985)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs776 F.
2d 887
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ramon NAVARRETE-MARTINEZ, Defendant,
And Concerning
Douglas Riddle, Professional Surety-Appellant.
No. 84-1062.
United States Court of Appeals,
Tenth Circuit.
Nov. 4, 1985.
As Amended Nov. 6, 1985.
1
Steven R. Newell, Denver, for surety-appellant.
Presiliano Torrez, Asst. U.S. Atty. (William L. Lutz, U.S. Atty., and Robert J.
Baca, Asst. U.S. Atty., on brief), Albuquerque, N.M., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BARRETT and McKAY Circuit Judges, and CARRIGAN, District
Judge* .
CARRIGAN, District Judge.
Appellant, Professional Surety Inc., appeals a district court order forfeiting a
bail bond. On October 6, 1982, a grand jury indicted Ramon NavarreteMartinez ("Defendant") on several criminal counts relating to smuggling of
illegal aliens. Appellant posted a $10,000 bond on behalf of the defendant.
December 3, 1982, the defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to transport illegal
aliens and sentencing was set for January 18, 1983. Defendant failed to appear
for sentencing, and on October 13, 1983, the United States Attorney moved for
an order forfeiting the bond. On October 18, 1983, the district court mailed to
the appellant an Order and Notice setting a hearing on the matter for October
28, 1983. Appellant received a copy of the Order and Notice but did not receive
a copy of the government's motion. On October 28, 1983, both parties appeared
at the hearing, and on October 31, 1983, the court forfeited the bond and
entered judgment for the United States in the amount of the bond.
Appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to forfeit the defendant's
bond immediately upon his failure to appear at the sentencing hearing.
Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(e)(1) states, "If there is a breach of condition of a bond, the
district court shall declare a forfeiture of the bail." Nothing in the rule, however,
requires the trial court to declare a forfeiture immediately upon the defendant's
failure to appear. Therefore this argument is without merit. Appearance Bond
Surety v. United States, 622 F.2d 334 (8th Cir.1980).
Appellant's second argument is that the court violated Rule 46(e)(3),
Fed.R.Crim.P. by failing to mail it a copy of the Motion for Forfeiture of Bond
and for Judgment. That rule states:
8
"When
a forfeiture has not been set aside, the court shall on motion enter a judgment
of default and execution may issue thereon.... The motion and such notice of the
motion as the court prescribes may be served on the clerk of the court, who shall
forthwith mail copies to the obligors to their last known addresses."
9
While the appellant did not receive an actual copy of the motion, Mr. Douglas
Riddle, the appellant's agent, was aware that the motion had been filed, and of
the circumstances giving rise to its filing, well before the October 28 hearing.
He also attended that hearing. Therefore, the court's failure to comply with
Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(e)(3) is harmless error.
10
Appellant further argues that the procedure followed by the trial court
constituted a breach of the terms of the bond, discharging the appellant from
liability. A careful reading of the bond reveals that there was no breach.
11
Finally, the appellant argues that the government's motion was improper under
Fed.R.Crim.P. 46, that the trial court erred in not granting a remission of the
judgment, and that the court erred in not granting an evidentiary hearing. These
arguments are without merit.
12
AFFIRMED.
Honorable Jim R. Carrigan, of the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado, sitting by designation
You might also like
- No ratings yetRichard H. Steinberg Sandra Steinberg Priority Development, Ltd., a Colorado Corporation Priority Development, Co., a Colorado Corporation v. Ken Allen, A/K/A Ken A. Allen, A/K/A Ken M. Allen Judy Allen Lincoln Theatre Production, Inc. Jerry F. Jager, and Thomas O. Murphy, Iii, and X-1 Through X-10, 979 F.2d 858, 10th Cir. (1992)6 pages
