United States v. John Joseph Vaccaro, and Bell Bail Bonds, Real-Party-In-Interest-Appellant

Good Law
91 Daily Journal DAR 4863·931 F.2d 605·1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 7523·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3011
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 29, 199189-15609, 15610California476 words

Opinion

Opinion

Skopil, J.

John Joseph Vaccaro was convicted of racketeering. United States v. Vaccaro, 602 F.Supp. 1132 (D.Nev.1985), aff'd, 816 F.2d 443 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 928 , 108 S.Ct. 295 , 98 L.Ed.2d 255 (1987). The district court released Vaccaro on bail while he appealed his conviction. His release was secured by a corporate surety bond provided by Bell Bail Bonds (Bell). While Vaccaro’s appeal was pending, the district court concluded that he breached a condition of his bond. Accordingly, the court ordered Vaccaro’s bail forfeited pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 46(e)(1). Vaccaro and Bell appeal from the district court’s order of forfeiture. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

DISCUSSION

“The courts of appeals ... shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts.... ” 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1988). A final decision is one that “ ‘ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.’ ” Cheng v. Commissioner, 878 F.2d 306, 309 (9th Cir.1989) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463, 467 , 98 S.Ct. 2454, 2457 , 57 L.Ed.2d 351 (1978)). We conclude that a declaration of forfeiture…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.