U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1970

United States v. John Clarence Cook

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided June 24, 1970 · Bell, Ainsworth, Godbold

428 F.2d 460; 1970 U.S. App. LEXIS 8511 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Louis Vernell, Miami Beach, Fla., for appellant., John L. Briggs, U. S. Atty., Joseph W. Hatchett, Harvey E. Schlesinger, Asst. U.S. Attys., Jacksonville, Fla., for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Anderer v. State (Tex. App. 1999)
United States v. Anthony John Spilotro, United States of America v. John Phillip Cerone, United States of America v. Joseph John Aiuppa (8th Cir. 1986)
United States v. Manuel W. James, Etc. And Gustavo Fernandez (11th Cir. 1982)
Rodriguez v. State (Tex. App. 1988)
United States v. Robert Henry Golding (5th Cir. 1984)
Estrada v. State (Tex. Crim. App. 1980)
Austin Troy Simon v. Albert Woodson, Sheriff of Lamar County, Texas (5th Cir. 1972)
United States v. John Clarence Cook (5th Cir. 1972)
United States v. Cliffton Ralph Cramer (5th Cir. 1971)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3147, and Rule 9(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure from an order of the district court imposing travel and other restrictions on appellant’s appearance bond. We affirm. 1

In February of 1969, appellant was charged in a five-count information with violating 26 U.S.C.A. § 7203, (willful failure to file an income tax return). He was released on a $5,000.00 surety bond. Thereafter a hearing was held on motion of the government as to the propriety of imposing certain restrictions upon appellant’s bond. As a result of this hearing, the court directed the execution of a new surety bond in the amount of $5,000.00 to include the following restrictions:

(a) The defendant shall not leave the jurisdiction of the Southern District of Florida or the Middle District of Florida for any reason whatsoever without the specific written permission from the Jacksonville Division of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

(b) The defendant shall not associate with any convicted felons, or any persons of bad reputation, or any other persons on either probation or parole.

The appellant contends that these restrictions are without basis and that they deprive him of a lawful means of livelihood. While it is clear that appellant was entitled to bail under Rule 46, F.R.Crim.P., and 18 U.S.C.A. § 3146, the conditions of the bail are left to the discretion of the issuing authority as long as those conditions are necessary to reasonably assure the appearance of the person as required. See Brown v. Fogel, 4 Cir., 1968, 387 F.2d 692. Cf. Brown v. United States, 5 Cir., 1968, 392 F.2d 189; and see 3 Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 763-64. Restrictions as to travel and association are specifically authorized by 18 U.S.C.A. § 3146(a) (2). No abuse of discretion is to be found on the record before us as to the imposition of the stated restrictions.

Affirmed.

. We dispose of this case on the briefs and record, without oral argument, as provided by our Local Rule 18.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.