United States v. Larry John Vera-Estrada, Sur., Flores & Flores, Sur.-Appellant. United States of Am. v. Alfred Yorba, Sur. Ins. Co., Sur.-Appellant, 577 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1978). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Larry John Vera-Estrada, Sur., Flores & Flores, Sur.-Appellant. United States of Am. v. Alfred Yorba, Sur. Ins. Co., Sur.-Appellant, 577 F.2d 598 (9th Cir. 1978). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 8 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. Sureties Tracy Nguyen Khanh Bui, Claimants-Appellants v. Vinh Huu Nguyen (ca9, 2002-02-08)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Sureties Tracy Nguyen Khanh Bui, Claimants-Appellants v. Vinh Huu Nguyen (2×)
9th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1978). 21 Tracy Nguyen and Bui do not contest the fact that they played no role in Nguyen's eventual apprehension.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Bankers Insurance Co. v. United States
D.C. · 1991 · confidence medium
United States v. Felix-Meza, 825 F.2d 1334, 1336 (9th Cir.1987); United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Marquez, 564 F.2d 379, 380 (10th Cir.1977); United States v. Payne, 272 F.Supp. 939, 941 (D.C.Conn.1967); see also 3A C.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Eleuteria Felix-Meza, and Surety Flores Bail Bonds, Claimant-Appellant
9th Cir. · 1987 · confidence medium
We held in United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1978), that “[njotice is ... not [required] when the defendant fails to appear and his bond is forfeited.” Flores further contends it is customary practice to give notice of bail forfeiture and therefore provision for such notice became an implied term of the bail bond contract.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Causey
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. · 1983 · confidence medium
E.g., United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598, 599-600 (9th Cir.1978); United States v. Marquez, 564 F.2d 379, 381 (10th Cir.1977).
cited Cited "see" United States v. Abelian
9th Cir. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir. 1978).
cited Cited "see" American Druggists Ins. Co., Inc., and John H. Brown v. Joseph I. Bogart, Clerk of the Court, Southern District of Florida
11th Cir. · 1983 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598, 600 (9th Cir.1977); United States v. Marquez, 564 F.2d 379, 381 (10th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Roman Mendoza-Acuna, and International Fidelity Insurance Company
9th Cir. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also United States v. Vera-Estrada, 577 F.2d 598 , 599 n. 2 (9th Cir.1978) (characterizing Gonware's statement that state law governs bail questions as dictum and noting that Gonware has been rejected by two other circuits).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Larry John Vera-Estrada, Surety, Flores & Flores, Surety-Appellant. United States of America v. Alfred Yorba, Surety Insurance Company, Surety-Appellant
77-2690.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 28, 1978.
577 F.2d 598
Published

577 F.2d 598

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Larry John VERA-ESTRADA, Defendant,
Surety, Flores & Flores, Surety-Appellant.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Alfred YORBA, Defendant,
Surety Insurance Company, Surety-Appellant.

Nos. 77-2690, 77-3015.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.

June 28, 1978.

Robert A. Ball, Joseph A. Milchen of McInerney, Milchen & Frank, San Diego, Cal., for surety-appellant.

D. Michael Waltz, Asst. U. S. Atty., on the brief, Terry J. Knoepp, U.S. Atty., San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.

Before CHOY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and PALMIERI,[*] District Judge.

J. BLAINE ANDERSON, Circuit Judge:

1

These bond forfeiture appeals[1] present a single issue: is a surety entitled to notice of its principal's failure to appear? We hold that under rule 46(e)(1), Fed.R.Crim.P., notice is not required. We affirm the District Court's ruling in each case in favor of the government.

2

On August 16, 1976, defendant Vera-Estrada failed to appear in District Court, and his $5,000 bail bond was ordered forfeited. The government first notified defendant's surety, appellant herein, of the forfeiture when it moved for judgment based on the forfeiture on March 11, 1977. Judgment was entered June 20, 1977.

3

Defendant Yorba failed to appear, and bond was ordered forfeited on May 2, 1977. Appellant first received notice of the forfeiture approximately two months later when the government filed its motion for judgment. The government was granted judgment on August 1, 1977.

4

Both judgments were for the full amount of the bond. These appeals followed.

5

Appellant contends its liability is excused by the clerk's failure to notify it of the forfeiture within thirty days as mandated by California Penal Code § 1305(a). Appellant contends § 1305(a) is an implied term of the bail bond contract. We disagree.

6

In United States v. Gonware, 415 F.2d 82 (9th Cir. 1969), this court indicated in dictum that a bail bond is to be interpreted in accordance with applicable state law. Because we find the Gonware dictum is not controlling, we do not decide whether it should be followed.[2]

7

In the instant case, state law is not offered as a guide to interpretation, but as an implied term of the contract. Furthermore, rule 46(e), Fed.R.Crim.P., establishes the procedures which are to be followed in the federal courts for the enforcement of liability of the surety. Notice is required when the government moves for judgment, but not when the defendant fails to appear and his bond is forfeited. United States v. Marquez, 564 F.2d 379 (10th Cir. 1977). It is the surety's responsibility to ensure the defendant does appear and learn when he does not. United States v. Payne, 272 F.Supp. 939 (D.Conn.1967).

8

The judgment in each case is AFFIRMED.

*

The Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Senior United States District Judge, Southern District of New York, sitting by designation

1

Both appeals were submitted without oral argument on May 3, 1978, and are hereby consolidated for disposition

2

This dictum has recently been criticized and rejected by two other circuits. See United States v. Catino, 562 F.2d 1 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Miller, 539 F.2d 445 (5th Cir. 1976)