Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Billie Sol Estes, for Himself and His Sureties, Sol B. Estes and John L. Estes, Sr. v. United States

353 F.2d 283

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-01-06
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from a forfeiture of a bail bond after a substantial remission by the District Judge. The facts are wholly uncontradicted. The District Court, as the law permits, Reynolds v. United States, 1959, 80 S.Ct. 30, 4 L.Ed.2d 46 (Douglas, Circuit Justice); United States v. Foster, 2 Cir., 1960, 278 F.2d 567, cert. denied, 364 U.S. 834, 81 S.Ct. 48, 5 L.Ed.2d 60; United States v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Billie Sol Estes, for Himself and His Sureties, Sol B. Estes and John L. Estes, Sr. v. United States. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
8 opinions
ESTES v. UNITED STATES,353 F.2d 283(5th Cir. 1965)
Billie Sol ESTES, for himself and his sureties, Sol B. Estes and John L.
Estes, Sr., Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 22198.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
December 2, 1965.
Rehearing Denied January 6, 1966.
John D. Cofer, Hume Cofer, Douglass D. Hearne, Austin, Tex., John P. Dennison, Pecos, Tex., Cofer, Cofer Hearne, Austin, Tex., on the brief, for appellant.

Barefoot Sanders, U.S. Atty., Charles D. Cabaniss, Asst. U.S. Atty., Dallas Tex., Melvin M. Diggs, U.S. Atty., William L. Hughes, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief, for appellee.
Before RIVES, BROWN and MOORE,fn*Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a forfeiture of a bail bond after a substantial remission by the District Judge. The facts are wholly uncontradicted. The District Court, as the law permits, Reynolds v. United States, 1959,80 S.Ct. 30,4 L.Ed. 2d 46(Douglas, Circuit Justice); United States v. Foster, 2 Cir., 1960,278 F.2d 567, cert. denied,364 U.S. 834,81 S.Ct. 48,5 L.Ed.2d 60; United States v. D'Argento, N.D.Ill., 1964,227 F. Supp. 596, rev'd on other grounds, 7 Cir.,339 F.2d 925, imposed a carefully prescribed territorial restriction upon the Defendant. Without obtaining permission from the Court, the Defendant, conscious of the territorial restriction, deliberately ignored it by leaving the prescribed District and the State of Texas for a trip to Colorado.1Upon notice to show cause why the bond should not be forfeited and a full hearing thereon, the District Judge found the terms of the bond breached, declared a forfeiture and remitted the forfeiture from $10,000 to $1,000. With the discretionPage 284necessarily committed to the trial Judge, there was ample basis for these conclusions and nothing in Dudley v. United States, 5 Cir., 1957,242 F.2d 656, Smaldone v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954,211 F.2d 161, or United States v. Eisner, 6 Cir., 1963,323 F.2d 38, compels a different result.

Affirmed.Page 287
  1. Of the Second Circuit, sitting by designation. ↩
  2. Compare United States v. D'Argento, 7 Cir., 1964,339 F.2d 925, in which the defendant was not aware of the territorial restriction in his bail bond, so that his breach of that restriction was not willful. ↩