United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. Donald L. Estes, Sr., Defendant-appellant, 458 F.2d 1076 (5th Cir. 1972)
Annotate this CaseStephen M. Orr, Earl L. Yeakel, III, Austin, Tex., Mitchell, Yeakel, Orr & Trickey, Austin, Tex., for defendant-appellant.
William S. Sessions, U. S. Atty., San Antonio, Tex., Jeremiah Handy, Asst. U. S. Atty., W. D. of Texas, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before BELL, DYER and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal under the Bail Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.A., Sec. 3147(b) (2), contesting the refusal of the district court to substitute an unsecured appearance bond for the surety bond which is now extant. No reasons were given by the district court for requiring the surety bond as a condition of release in the first instance nor in denying the substitution.
The order of the district court is vacated and the cause is remanded in order that the district court may comply with the requirements of Rule 9(a), Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which requires the district court to state in writing the reasons for imposing conditions of release. See United States v. Cramer, 5 Cir., 1971, 451 F.2d 1198, and particularly the text of fn. 2.
Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
Rule 18, 5 Cir., Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Company of New York et al., 5 Cir., 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
