Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Joseph Javad Mizani, and Mohammed Mizani, Surety-Appellant, 605 F.2d 739, 4th Cir. (1979)
United States v. Joseph Javad Mizani, and Mohammed Mizani, Surety-Appellant, 605 F.2d 739, 4th Cir. (1979)
2d 739
to take him into custody but was unable to locate him. On January 16, 1976, an
order was entered in the district court taking judgment against Mohammed for
the amount of the bond, with the provision that he could apply to the court for a
credit against the bond should he "be successful in promptly surrendering the
said Joseph Javad Mizani to the appropriate authorities."
3
Nothing further occurred until May 26, 1978, when counsel for Mohammed
filed another pleading and appeared before the court in an attempt to stay
execution on certain real estate owned by Mohammed in the State of Kentucky.
In addition, the district court was asked to reconsider its denial of Mohammed's
previous motion to reduce the judgment. Following a hearing on May 30, 1978,
the district court entered an order Nunc pro tunc December 2, 1977, which
reviewed the docket entries and reflected the action of the court in denying
Mohammed's motion for reduction of the judgment. A notice of appeal was
filed by Mohammed on June 7, 1978.
The sole issue presented for our review is whether the district court abused its
discretion in refusing to remit any part of the forfeited bond. In appraising the
action of the district court, two of the factors to be considered are the expenses
incurred by the Government and the appropriateness of the amount of the bond.
United States v. Kirkman, 426 F.2d 747 (4 Cir. 1970). Other pertinent factors
include the willfulness of the defendant's breach of the bond's conditions, the
At the original bail hearing on August 16, 1974, Mohammed testified that if
Joseph were released on bail he would be employed in Mohammed's business
and Mohammed assured the court that he would act as Joseph's supervisor. The
district court indicated its concern about releasing Joseph since he was an alien,
and warned Mohammed that he was taking a substantial risk of losing his
money if he undertook to guarantee his brother's appearance. The court went so
far as to observe that Mohammed would be foolish to sign such a substantial
bond under these circumstances.
10
AFFIRMED.
by designation