Opinion ID: 65776
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Delay in Posting the Receiver's Bond

Text: Setser next argues that the receiver lacked authority to enter premises and seize documents because he did not post a required bond until after he had conducted the searches. See 28 U.S.C. § 754. The government does not dispute that a bond was not timely obtained. Setser cites a district court case as his primary authority for this proposition. Warfield v. Arpe, No. 3:05-cv-1457-R, 2007 WL 549467, at -11 (N.D.Tex. Feb. 22, 2007). There, a receiver did not timely file his order of appointment in a different state, a filing that became necessary once some of the assets were found to be present there. A statute provides that the failure to file such copies in any district shall divest the receiver of jurisdiction and control over all such property in that district. 28 U.S.C. § 754. In Warfield, the court upheld a new appointment and timely filing of the necessary papers to correct the defect. 2007 WL 549467, at . The statute in question in Warfield also provides that upon giving bond as required by the court, the receiver is vested with the control of the property and a right to take possession. 28 U.S.C. § 754. Setser does not dispute the government's claim that he never raised this issue at his criminal trial. Thus, we at most review for plain error. Even when there is error, the defect must seriously affect the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings. United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770, 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (internal quotation marks omitted). We cannot find that the purely technical defect of the late but eventual obtaining of a bond in any way affects a substantial right, as no evidence was obtained and then introduced that could not later have been obtained and introduced after correcting the defect in the bond. We therefore reject all of Setser's arguments that the search performed under the Receivership Order was invalid.