United States v. Foster, 8378

• Decision Date: 25 October 1961
• Docket Number: No. 8378,8460.,8378
• Citation: 296 F.2d 249
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Grant FOSTER, Appellant. Grant FOSTER, Petitioner, v. Honorable Roszel C. THOMSEN, United States District Judge, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Respondents.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

296 F.2d 249 (1961)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Grant FOSTER, Appellant.

Grant FOSTER, Petitioner, v. Honorable Roszel C. THOMSEN, United States District Judge, and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, Respondents.

Nos. 8378, 8460.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued October 23, 1961.

Decided October 25, 1961.

Harold L. Ward and Walter Humkey, Miami (Sherwin P. Simmons and Fowler, White, Gillen, Humkey & Trenam, Miami, Fla., on the brief), for appellant and petitioner.

Joseph D. Tydings, U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md. (Arnold M. Weiner, Asst. U. S. Atty., Baltimore, Md., on the brief), for appellee and respondents.

Before SOBELOFF, Chief Judge, and BOREMAN and BRYAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Immediately after his arrest in Miami, Florida, on February 4, 1961, Grant Foster, an American citizen residing in Panama, posted a cash bail bond in the amount of $200,000.00. The bond was conditioned upon his appearance to answer an indictment filed in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland for violation of the Internal Revenue laws.¹ No objection to the amount of bail was made until April 21, 1961, when a petition was filed in the United States District Court for Maryland for a reduction. Seven days later, when the defendant was arraigned, the court held a hearing on the petition. Extensive arguments were made by counsel for the defendant as well as for the Government. The defendant was present in the courtroom, but no tender of any evidence was made on behalf of the defendant to show hardship or any facts bearing on the financial condition of the defendant. It was the Government's contention that the defendant, a resident of Panama, was the principal owner — it claimed he was in fact the sole owner — of a corporation which was engaged in road building in Central America. The corporation had in a bid for work represented itself to be worth $4,500,000.00. The Government further showed, and there was no substantial issue as to this, that the defendant had no close ties in the United States, and that the amount of taxes involved in the indictment exceeded $300,000. Apparently, while the defendant made occasional visits to the United States, he had no regular schedule for his visits and no place of business in this country.

The appeal here is from the District Court's refusal to reduce the amount of the bail. We find in these circumstances no basis for holding that the bond, as originally fixed, was excessive, or that the District Judge abused his discretion in later refusing to reduce it.

Before us, even though requested by the court, the defendant still failed to show any facutal basis for his charge of hardship in the amount of bail. Asked to explain why he failed for a period of nine months to apply to this court or to any judge thereof for lower bail, counsel for the defendant replied that since the bail question is concededly appealable, he preferred to reserve it as a vehicle to bring before this court for review at the same time other issues, such as...