United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20 (9th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
32 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Tasia Watson (ca9, 2014-07-15)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 20 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Tasia Watson
9th Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Mattero
D. Me. · 2010 · confidence medium
The Court has considered the Government’s motion and Mr. Mattero’s opposition in light of the four-factors adopted by the First Circuit in United States v. Donlon: 2 (1) the willfulness of the defendant’s breach of conditions; (2) the participation of the sureties in apprehending the defendant; *81 (3) the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the government as a result of the defendant’s breach; and (4) any explanation or mitigating facts. 909 F.2d 650, 657 (1st Cir.1990) (quoting United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Beagle v. State
Wyo. · 2004 · confidence medium
Co., at 1325-26 (citing United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied 456 U.S. 978 , 102 S.Ct. 2245 , 72 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982), and United States v. Parr, at 444) also enunciated that the district court should specifically consider in making its determination: 1.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Action Bailbonds v. State
Wyo. · 2002 · confidence medium
Co., at 1325-26 (citing United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied 456 U.S. 978 , 102 S.Ct. 2245 , 72 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982), and United States v. Parr, 594 F.2d 440, 444 (5th Cir.1979)). [(¥20] In reviewing whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, we must make an in depth review of the record before us.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dror Sar-Avi
9th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Werner
R.I. · 1995 · confidence medium
United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fry
Idaho Ct. App. · 1994 · confidence medium
United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 852 (9th Cir.1982); United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981); Seybert, 745 P.2d at 689 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allegheny Mutual Casualty Co. v. United States
D.C. · 1993 · confidence medium
See also United States v. Diaz, 811 F.2d 1412, 1414 (11th Cir.1987); United States v. Gutierrez, supra note 1, 771 F.2d at 1003 ; United States v. Roher, 706 F.2d 725, 728 (5th Cir.1983); United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 22 (9th Cir.1981). .
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. William Richard Minor
9th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom.
cited Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Carvajal
E.D.N.Y · 1987 · confidence medium
See United States v. Gutierrez, 771 F.2d 1001, 1003 (7th Cir.1985); United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 978 , 102 S.Ct. 2245 , 72 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Rafael Santiago, Appeal of Esther Cruz
7th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
Both parties agree that our decision in Gutierrez provides the framework for our analysis: “In the usual case, the factors that the district court should consider in making its determination regarding whether a forfeiture should be set aside ... include: '(1) the willfulness of the defendant’s breach of conditions; (2) the participation of the sureties in apprehending the defendant; (3) the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the government as a result of the defendant’s breach; and (4) any explanation or mitigating factors presented by the defendant.’ United States v. Castal…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Leonel Gutierrez, Appeal of Terry D. Cornell (2×) also: Cited "see"
7th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
In the usual case, the factors that the district court should consider in making its determination regarding whether a forfeiture should be set aside or remitted include: “(1) the willfulness of the defendant’s breach of conditions; (2) the participation of the surities in apprehending the defendant; (3) the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the government as a result of the defendant’s breach; and (4) any explanation or mitigating factors presented by the defendant.” United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 978 , 102 S.Ct. 2245 , 72…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Donald Ray Abernathy, Daniel David Abernathy (2×)
9th Cir. · 1985 · confidence medium
United States v. Frias-Ramirez, 670 F.2d 849, 852 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 842 , 103 S.Ct. 94 , 74 L.Ed.2d 86 (1982); United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 978 , 102 S.Ct. 2245 , 72 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Allied Fidelity Insurance Co. v. State Ex Rel. Carbon County School District
Wyo. · 1983 · confidence medium
These factors were set out in United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981): “Rule 46(e)(1) mandates the forfeiture of a bond upon the breach of a bond condition, such as the defendant’s non-appearance.
cited Cited "see" Ash-Will Farms, L.C. v. Leachman Cattle Co.
9th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981).
cited Cited "see" Ash-Will Farms, L.C. v. Leachman Cattle Co.
9th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Daniel J. Donlon
1st Cir. · 1990 · signal: see · confidence high
See Gutierrez, 771 F.2d at 1003 (quoting United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied sub nom.
cited Cited "see" United States v. Otto George Nelson, Jerry Reeder Bail Bonds, Real Party in Interest/appellant
9th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 978 , 102 S.Ct. 2245 , 72 L.Ed.2d 853 (1982).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Hector Ruiz-Solis
9th Cir. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 54 F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 1995); see also United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir. 1981) (“A trial court should consider several factors when deciding whether to remit or set aside a forfeiture…” (emphasis added)); cf. United States v. Brooks, 872 F.3d 78, 92 (2d Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Gambino, 17 F.3d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1994) (“The court must consider several factors in evaluating the remission motion.” (emphasis added)).
cited Cited "see, e.g." State v. Old West Bonding Co.
Ariz. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence medium
State v. Fry, 128 Idaho 50 , 910 P.2d 164, 167-68 (App.1994); see also United States v. Castaldo, 667 F.2d 20, 21 (9th Cir.1981).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Ernest Joseph Castaldo, Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., Insurance Company of the West and Neil Frederick Miller, Sureties, Real Parties in Interest And
80-5258.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Nov 23, 1981.
667 F.2d 20
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published

667 F.2d 20

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Ernest Joseph CASTALDO, Defendant-Appellant,
Cotton Belt Insurance Company, Inc., Insurance Company of
the West and Neil Frederick Miller, Sureties, Real
Parties in Interest and Appellants.

No. 80-5258.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Oct. 9, 1981.
Decided Nov. 23, 1981.

William T. Murphy, Law Office of Chris A. Schaefer, San Rafael, Cal., for defendant-appellant.

Henry H. Rossbacher, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

Before SKOPIL, FARRIS and BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judges.

BOOCHEVER, Circuit Judge.

[*~20]1

At issue in this appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to set aside or remit a bond forfeited pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(e) (1) following Castaldo's failure to appear at a scheduled post-conviction hearing.

2

Rule 46(e)(1) mandates the forfeiture of a bond upon the breach of a bond condition, such as the defendant's non-appearance. The rule, however, confers discretion upon the trial court to set aside or remit all or part of a forfeiture "if it appears that justice does not require the enforcement of the forfeiture." Fed.R.Crim.P. 46(e)(2) and (4). A trial court should consider several factors when deciding whether to remit or set aside a forfeiture, including 1) the willfulness of the defendant's breach of conditions; 2) the participation of the sureties in apprehending the defendant; 3) the cost, inconvenience and prejudice suffered by the government as a result of the defendant's breach; and 4) any explanation or mitigating factors presented by the defendant. See United States v. Stanley, 601 F.2d 380, 382 (9th Cir. 1979) (per curiam). We will not overturn a trial court's ruling on a motion to set aside or remit a forfeiture absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 382.

3

The facts herein do not support a finding of an abuse of discretion. The record contains ample support for upholding the forfeiture. Affidavits submitted by the parties showed that: Castaldo's breach was willful; the bonding companies took no active role in apprehending Castaldo; and the government incurred considerable, although unspecified, expense in its 170 day search for Castaldo. No mitigating factors were offered. Moreover, the appellants were experienced at bonding criminal defendants. They were aware of the risks of executing and filing a bond on Castaldo's behalf. The government had even apprised them that it perceived Castaldo as a likely candidate for "jumping bail."

4

Nor did the trial court abuse its discretion by failing to conduct a full-scale evidentiary hearing on the bonding companies' motion to set aside or remit. The court based its decision on adequate evidence contained in the parties' affidavits. Moreover, the sureties never requested an evidentiary rehearing.

5

Finally, the appellants' policy argument fails. The forfeiture will not have a chilling effect on the willingness of bonding companies to help criminal defendants exercise their constitutional right to bail. Instead, it will encourage bonding companies to ascertain more carefully the value of the security given by defendants, to consider the likelihood of the defendant breaching a bond condition, to take reasonable precautions to assure the defendant's appearance, and to cooperate fully in efforts to reapprehend a defendant who fails to appear.

[*~21]6

The district court's order is AFFIRMED.