Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heidi TIRADO, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-23
Citations: 674 F. App'x 743
Docket Number: No. 15-50316
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heidi TIRADO, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant.
Judges: Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 674
Pages: 743–743

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Heidi TIRADO, Real-party-in-interest-Appellant.
No. 15-50316
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted January 18, 2017
Filed January 23, 2017
Jean-Claude Andre, Assistant U.S. Attorney, DOJ—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Los Angeles, CA, Mark Takla, Assistant U.S. Attorney, AUSA—Office of the U.S. Attorney, Santa Ana, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee
Heidi Tirado, Pro Se
Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
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 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.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.