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

472 F.2d 1223
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided January 2, 1973·No. 72-2626·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

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. 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.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

472 F.2d 1223 (United States v. Jack Henry Casanova, Also Known as Jack Casini) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pueblo v. Rivera Segarra
139 P.R. Dec. 206 (Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, 1995)
United States v. Frias-Ramirez
670 F.2d 849 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
United States v. Frank D. Stanley
601 F.2d 380 (Ninth Circuit, 1979)