 |
|||
|
Return to Article List Return to Article Search Email this page to a friend |
US - United States v. Zuluaga-Berrio, 377 F.Supp.2d 611In United States v. Zuluaga-Berrio, 377 F.Supp.2d 611 (W.D. Tex. 2005) the defendant fled to Mexico but was apprehended by the Mexican authorities and retrieved by the U.S. Marshal's Service. The Government incurred some expense in bring him back from Mexico. The surety moved for remission of the bond forfeiture. The court held that forfeiture was mandatory when the defendant failed to appear but that complete or partial remission of the forfeiture was within the discretion of the court under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(f). The court granted a partial remission because the defendant was in custody but was not surrendered by the surety or bail agent. For reasons not explained, the surety had paid only $7,600 of the $25,000 penal sum, and the court ordered remission of forfeiture of the unpaid balance. This would seem to punish the surety for making the partial payment, or conversely to reward the surety for not paying the entire forfeiture. It would seem to have made more sense to base the amount forfeited on the Government's expense in obtaining custody or the delay involved, but since the decision does not explain why only $7,600 was paid, there may have been a connection between the amount and the Government's expense or the amount and some other rationale for computing the partial remission. |
HOME | ABOUT PBUS | CONFERENCE | MEMBERSHIP | BOARD OF DIRECTORS |