United States v. Cebreros De Rojo

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: May 28, 2025
• Docket: 24-4405
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 28 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT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. 24-4405 D.C. No. 2:18-cr-00175-TLN-1 Plaintiff - Appellee,

ROSA LUZ CEBREROS DE ROJO, MEMORANDUM* Claimant - Appellant,

v.

YOVANNY ONTIVEROS, AKA Yovanny Ontiveros Cebre, AKA Yovanny Cebreros,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2025**

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

Rosa Luz Cebreros de Rojo appeals from the district court’s judgment

* 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). forfeiting the $100,000 appearance bond posted by Cebreros on behalf of her son,

defendant Yovanny Ontiveros. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Reviewing for abuse of discretion, United States v. Nguyen, 279 F.3d 1112, 1115

(9th Cir. 2002), we affirm.

Cebreros contends that the district court abused its discretion by declining to

set aside all or part of the bond forfeiture because the Nguyen factors, see id. at

1115-16 (listing six non-exclusive factors to be considered by district courts when

deciding whether to set aside forfeiture of a bond), tip in her favor. In particular,

Cebreros argues that her personal circumstances, the lack of evidence that she

knew of or facilitated Ontiveros’s decision to flee, and the additional criminal case

brought against Ontiveros after the bond hearing, supported setting aside the

forfeiture. The district court considered these arguments, however, and—after

giving Ontiveros an additional 15 days to surrender—reasonably determined that

there was no basis to set aside the forfeiture under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 46(f)(2). The district court did not abuse “the wide discretion afforded

[it] in this arena.” Nguyen, 279 F.3d at 1115.

The government’s request for judicial notice is granted.

AFFIRMED.

2 24-4405