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

353 F.2d 283

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: January 6, 1966
• Docket: 22198_1
• Status: Published

Opinion

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. 1 Upon 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 discre tion necessarily 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.

1 . 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.