United States v. Maria Lopez , 669 F. App'x 442 ( 2016 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 04 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 14-10425
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 4:01-cr-00424-JSW
v.
MEMORANDUM*
FRANCISCA ALVARADO LOPEZ,
a.k.a. Angelica, a.k.a. Chaparra,
Defendant,
and
MARIA LOPEZ, Surety-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Jeffrey S. White, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 27, 2016**
Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Maria Lopez (“Appellant”) appeals from the district court’s order granting
the government’s motion for forfeiture of Francisca Alvarado Lopez’s $200,000
*
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).
appearance bond and entering judgment against Appellant as surety for 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 $200,000
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 she was provided with an interpreter at her sister’s bond hearing and was
informed that the government could seek to recover the full $200,000 bond if her
sister absconded prior to trial. The district court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that these factors outweighed Appellant’s mitigating arguments,
including her lack of familiarity with the criminal justice system, her status as a
family member rather than a professional bail bondsman, her offer to cooperate in
the apprehension of her sister, and her limited financial means. See id. at 1115-17
& n.2 (discussing factors the district court is to consider when ruling on a bond
forfeiture motion and declining to create a “loving relative” exception to bond
forfeiture).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-10425