United States v. John Joseph Vaccaro, and Rochelle Bell, Doing Business as Bell Bail Bonds, Real Party in Interest-Appellant

Good Law
51 F.3d 189·95 Daily Journal DAR 3504·32 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 588·1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 5546·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2073
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 21, 199594-10021, 94-10072California2,175 words

Opinion

Opinion

Skopil, J.

The question presented on appeal is whether a district court may order forfeiture of a bail bond after finding that defendant violated a “break no laws” condition of release. Defendant and bail bond company contend that a bond cannot be forfeited except for a defendant’s failure to appear. The bond company failed to file a timely notice of appeal, and accordingly, its appeal is dismissed. We conclude that the district court properly forfeited the bond, holding defendant liable. We affirm.

I.

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). His pretrial release was secured by a $100,000 bond provided by Bell Bail Bonds (Bell). As a condition of his release, Vaeearo agreed that he would “not violate any local, state or federal laws or regulations.”

Vaeearo violated the “break no laws” condition. Consequently, the district court ordered the bail bond forfeited. United States v. Vaccaro, 719 F.Supp. 1510, 1521 (D.Nev.1989). Both Vaeearo and Bell appealed. We dismissed those appeals, however, and remanded to allow the district…

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.