Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States v. Jack Henry Casanova, Also Known as Jack Casini

United States v. Jack Henry Casanova, Also Known as Jack Casini, 472 F.2d 1223 (9th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-01-02
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: 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.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jack Henry Casanova, Also Known as Jack Casini. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
4 opinions
UNITED STATES v. CASANOVA,472 F.2d 1223(9th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE. v. JACK HENRY CASANOVA, ALSO
KNOWN AS JACK CASINI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
No. 72-2626.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
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.
PER CURIAM:
[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] Affirmed.