United States v. Pedraza ( 1998 )

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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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-