United States v. Heidi Tirado ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                                                             FILED
    NOT FOR PUBLICATION                               JAN 23 2017
    MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        No. 15-50316
    Plaintiff-Appellee,                D.C. No. 8:12-cr-00029-JLS
    v.
    MEMORANDUM*
    HEIDI TIRADO,
    Real-party-in-interest-
    Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Central District of California
    Josephine L. Staton, District Judge, Presiding
    Submitted January 18, 2017**
    Before:      TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
    Heidi Tirado (“Appellant”) appeals pro se from the district court’s order
    granting the government’s motion for forfeiture of Pedro Alejandro Tirado’s
    $50,000 appearance bond and entering judgment against Appellant as surety for
    *
    This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
    except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
    **
    The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
    without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    the full amount of the bond. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we
    affirm.
    Appellant contends that the district court erred by entering a $50,000
    judgment against her as surety. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
    declining to set aside the bond forfeiture. See United States v. Nguyen, 
    279 F.3d 1112
    , 1115 (9th Cir. 2002). Contrary to Appellant’s contention, the record shows
    that Appellant was adequately advised of the consequences of signing the Affidavit
    of Surety. Moreover, the district court applied the correct legal standard and
    properly weighed the relevant factors. See 
    id. at 1115-17
    (discussing factors a
    district court is to consider when ruling on a bond forfeiture motion). Finally, we
    reject Appellant’s arguments that she was an inadequate surety or that her assets
    were inadequate to support the bond. See United States v. Noriega-Sarabia, 
    116 F.3d 417
    , 419 (9th Cir. 1997) (rejecting the argument that a bond is inadequate
    because the surety’s “net worth was not up to the amount of the bond”).
    AFFIRMED.
    2                                      15-50316
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-50316

Judges: Trott, Tashima, Callahan

Filed Date: 1/23/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024