Court Opinion

ID: 13868
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-04-25 06:30:42+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:37:59.381394
License: Public Domain

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                         FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

                         _____________________

                              No. 96-40885
                            Summary Calendar
                         _____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                        Plaintiff,

                                versus

MARIO ALBERTO PEDRAZA,

                                                        Defendant,

ED D. RAZO; BANKERS INSURANCE
COMPANY,

                                                       Appellant.
_________________________________________________________________

      Appeal from the United States District Court for the
                    Southern District of Texas
                       USDC No. L-96-CR-29-4
_________________________________________________________________
                          January 13, 1998

Before JOLLY, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

     Ed D. Razo and Bankers Insurance Company, surety for criminal

defendant Mario Alberto Pedraza, appeal the district court’s order

denying their motion for new trial and for reconsideration of the

court’s order granting a judgment of default on bond.   The surety

     *
      Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
alleges that it did not receive notice of the hearing of the

judgment of default as required by Rule 46(e)(3).

     The surety was not entitled to notice of any proceedings other

than the judgment of default on bond.   United States v. Garcia, 724
F.2d 514, 516 (5th Cir. 1984).     The surety admitted receiving a

copy of the motion for judgment of default on bond.    The district

court considered the arguments the surety would have presented at

the hearing when ruling on the surety’s postjudgment motion, and

the court informed the surety that, if the surety secured Pedraza’s

immediate appearance, it would consider remission of bond.      The

surety has cited no substantive defense it had to the judgment of

default.

     DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.   See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

                                                 D I S M I S S E D.

                                 -2-