United States v. Buntenbah

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-1444
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 24-1444 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 1:19-cr-00099-DKW-KJM-7 v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL BUNTENBAH, AKA Mike B,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii Derrick K. Watson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

Before: SILVERMAN, LEE, and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges.

Michael Buntenbah appeals from the district court’s judgment forfeiting his

$250,000 bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for

abuse of discretion, see United States v. Nguyen, 279 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Buntenbah’s request for oral argument is denied. 2002), we affirm.

Buntenbah contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining

to set aside the bond forfeiture. He argues that the district court failed to consider

the Nguyen factors, see id. at 1115-16, and gave too much weight to those factors it

implicitly considered. In Buntenbah’s view, a proper weighing of the factors

would have resulted in setting aside some or all of the bond forfeiture.

The record reflects that the district court considered and appropriately

weighed the Nguyen factors, which were discussed extensively by the parties. The

court’s focus on the willfulness and “egregiousness” of Buntenbah’s conduct was

justified by Buntenbah’s arguments and the nature of the violation. Given the

aggravating circumstances of the breach, the court did not abuse its discretion in

declining to set aside any portion of the forfeited bond, notwithstanding that some

factors may have weighed in Buntenbah’s favor. See United States v. Stanley, 601

F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1979) (the district court did not abuse its “wide discretion”

by failing to set aside forfeiture even though the defendant “made all required court

appearances and there was no showing of specific prejudice, cost, or inconvenience

to the Government resulting from [his] breach”); see also Nguyen, 279 F.3d at

1117 (“[A] bond functions like liquidated damages in that it must be reasonable

when set; it need not necessarily approximate the actual costs of breach.”).

AFFIRMED.

2 24-1444