Stanton v. United States, 14519.
| Citation | 226 F.2d 822,15 Alaska 673 |
| Decision Date | 15 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 14519.,14519. |
| Parties | Willie STANTON and Mildred C. Stanton, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Warren A. Taylor, Eugene V. Miller, Taylor & Taylor, Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellants.
Theodore F. Stevens, U. S. Atty., George M. Yeager, Phillip W. Morgan, Asst. U. S. Attys., Fairbanks, Alaska, for appellee.
Before STEPHENS, HEALY, and ORR, Circuit Judges.
One Robinson was convicted of a federal offense in an Alaska court and the Stantons went on his bail bond pending appeal to this court. The appeal was dismissed.
Prior to the dismissal of the appeal, Robinson had been forcibly taken to Fort Lewis in the State of Washington for separation from the Army. Upon separation, Robinson did not return to Alaska, but went to New York. Notice was given his attorney as to the day of sentence after dismissal of the appeal, but he did not appear, and apparently made no effort to appear. The Stantons had notice of the situation but made no reasonable effort, if any at all, to return Robinson, but the United States returned him to the Alaska court from West Virginia months after the date for the sentence, and filed action and recovered judgment for the full face of the bond. Thereafter appellants filed a motion for remission under subdivision (f) (4) of Rule 46, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 18 U.S.C.A.1 This motion was denied, and that ruling is before us upon appeal.
There is nothing of merit in the appeal. Remission of the sum of the judgment or any part thereof is a matter to be passed upon in the sound discretion of the court. Discretion of the court is ably commented upon in Smaldone v. United States, 10 Cir., 1954, 211 F.2d 161, 163; wherein it is said:
There is nothing in the case to indicate that the trial court abused its discretion.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. United States
...States, 296 F.2d 167 (8th Cir. 1961); United States v. Carolina Ins. Co., 237 F.2d 451 (7th Cir. 1956); Stanton v. United States, 226 F.2d 822, 15 Alaska 673 (9th Cir. 1955); United States v. Davis, 202 F.2d 621 (7th Cir. As its last ground of appeal, Resolute argues that the trial court er......
-
U.S. v. Frias-Ramirez
...(9th Cir. 1973); United Benefit Fire Insurance Co. of Omaha, Neb. v. United States, 306 F.2d 325 (9th Cir. 1962); Stanton v. United States, 226 F.2d 822 (9th Cir. 1955).5 The government need not show specifically what costs it has incurred. Stanley, 601 F.2d at 382.6 The sureties also sugge......
-
U.S. v. Stanley, 78-1924
...(9th Cir. 1973); United Benefit Fire Insurance Co. v. United States, 306 F.2d 325, 327 (9th Cir. 1962); Stanton v. United States, 226 F.2d 822, 823, 15 Alaska 673 (9th Cir. 1955). Some of the factors it may consider are the willfulness of the breach, the participation of the bondsman in the......
-
American Constitutional Party v. Munro
...the judge to a just result. Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541, 51 S.Ct. 243, 247, 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931). See also Stanton v. United States, 226 F.2d 822, 823 (9th Cir. 1955). In the present case, the district court had before it the affidavit of State Representative Nelson which averred tha......