United States v. Sureties Tracy Nguyen Khanh Bui, Claimants-Appellants v. Vinh Huu Nguyen

Opinion by Judge McKEOWN; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD.

This case arises out of Vinh Huu Nguyen’s conviction for fraud and his subsequent failure to surrender to serve his prison term. Pending his appeal, the court allowed Nguyen to remain free on a bond secured by property belonging to Tracy Nguyen, his sister-in-law, and *1114 Khanh Bui, his brother-in-law (collectively “the Sureties”). When Nguyen failed to self-surrender in accord with the court’s order, the district court granted the government’s application for judgment of default on bond forfeiture. The Sureties claim that the district court abused its discretion in ordering that the entire $100,000 bond be forfeited. We disagree and we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Nguyen was convicted of eleven counts of loan fraud and sentenced to a thirty-month prison term. The district court increased his bond from $50,000 to $100,000 and released him pending appeal. The Sureties secured the bond with their equity in residential properties. Bui offered as collateral a house that he owned but did not live in; Tracy Nguyen offered her residence, although she also owned commercial property in which her office was located.

Nguyen was successful in…

dissenting:

I agree that forfeiture was mandatory. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to remit the forfeiture in its entirety. I disagree, though, on remission in part. There was no good reason to forfeit the entire amount of the bond. The district court did not give any reason at all for why the whole bond, not just part, should have been forfeited. The district court focused entirely on whether there should be a forfeiture, not on how much. Failure to remit in part was an abuse of discretion.

The $100,000 in security was probably designed to cover the expense of fetching Nguyen if he fled to a foreign country or otherwise put the government to great expense. But all Nguyen did was fail to show up at the marshal’s office, and put the government to the minimal burden of telephoning and driving around town to get him. A hundred thousand dollars is a lot of money for doing nothing more than looking around town for less than three weeks before picking Nguyen up at his place of business and giving him a ride in a government car. Nguyen’s sister-in-law and brother-in-law will probably both lose their homes because of the forfeiture. They are not the…

279 F.3d 1112 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sureties Tracy NGUYEN; Khanh Bui, Claimants-Appellants, v. Vinh Huu NGUYEN, Defendant. No. 00-55795. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted September 13, 2001. Filed February 8, 2002. Roger S. Hanson, Santa Ana, California, for the claimants-appellants. Jean Rosenbluth, Assistant United States Attorney, United States Attorney's Office, Los Angeles, California, for the plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California; Alicemarie H. Stotler, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CR-96-00032-AHS. Before: FERNANDEZ, KLEINFELD, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge McKEOWN; Dissent by Judge KLEINFELD. McKEOWN, Circuit Judge. 1 This case arises out of Vinh Huu Nguyen's conviction for fraud and his subsequent failure to surrender to serve his prison term. Pending his appeal, the court allowed Nguyen to remain free on a bond secured by property belonging to Tracy Nguyen, his sister-in-law, and Khanh Bui, his brother-in-law (collectively "the Sureties"). When Nguyen failed to self-surrender in accord with the court's order, the district…