Horn

United States v. Horn

Good Law
511 F. App'x 675
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 19, 201312-50142California368 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Appellant Gerson S. Horn’s claims of error all depend on his assertion that the bond money belonged to him. The district court found that it belonged to Horn’s client, David Hamedany: “[T]he $89,530.84 posted for [Hamedany’s] bond ... is directly traceable to the liquidation of his 401(k) account....” We review this finding for clear error, Momot v. Mastro, 652 F.3d 982, 986 (9th Cir.2011), and find none.

The magistrate judge ordered Hameda-ny’s bond to be “collateralized by the proceeds in defendant’s 401 (k) account.” The order specified that “[t]he equity in the account shall be liquidated. The proceeds of the account shall be withdrawn and posted as cash collateral with the Clerk, unless ... defendant and the United States submit a joint stipulation that the proceeds of the account may remain in the account subject to the right of the government to withdraw them.” The record indicates the order was complied with. The money from Hamedany’s 401 (k) went into a client trust account managed by Horn, and Horn wrote a check for the bond, drawn on that trust account. The bond order didn’t mention the possibility that Horn would post the bond on behalf of his client. Nor…

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.