936 F2d 581 United States v. K Nazari

936 F.2d 581

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Soheil K. NAZARI, Defendant,
v.
Gary BRIBER, Surety-Appellant.

No. 90-10404.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 17, 1991.*
Decided June 20, 1991.

Before GOODWIN, SKOPIL and CANBY, Circuit Judges.

1

MEMORANDUM**

2

Gary Briber appeals from a judgment of forfeiture entered against him pursuant to Criminal Rule of Federal Procedure 46(e). We affirm.

DISCUSSION

3

Briber first argues that he should not have been allowed to act as a surety because to do so was in violation of California law. This matter, however, is controlled by federal law, which does not prohibit private parties from acting as sureties. See 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3141-3156 (1988).

4

Briber next contends that the magistrate should not have accepted the residence as security because to do so "did nothing to assure defendant's presence" at trial. Although hindsight proved that to be true, the magistrate released defendant pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142(c)(B)(xii), which required only that defendant "execute a bail bond with solvent sureties in such amount as is reasonably necessary to assure the appearance of the person." Briber's residence was valued at the face value of the bond. We cannot say that it was an abuse of discretion for the magistrate to accept Briber's residence as security for the bond.

5

Briber's final argument is that the district court abused its discretion in not remitting all or part of the forfeiture. He contends that justice does not require forfeiture because he is not a professional surety, not personally close to the defendant, and he attempted to locate defendant. We have held that a district court does not abuse its discretion where it appears that (1) a defendant intentionally failed to appear, (2) the government incurred some costs and inconvenience as a result of defendant's failure to appear, (3) the amount of bail was appropriate, and (4) the surety knew of the consequences if defendant failed to appear. United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 852-53 (9th Cir.1982). That is the case here.

6

AFFIRMED.

*

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for submission on the record and briefs and without oral argument. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a), Ninth Circuit Rule 34-4

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3