USA v. Hernandez-Leon, et al.

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
) 	CASE NO. 1:19-CR-00523-14
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
JOSE FRANCISCO REYES, 	) 	MEMORANDUM OF
) 	OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant. 	)
) 	[Resolving ECF No. 518]
The Court considers the Government’s Motion for a Declaration of Bond Forfeiture (ECF
No. 518) under 18 U.S.C. § 3146 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f). The Motion is granted.
I. 	I NTRODUCTION
Defendant Jose Francisco Reyes, a citizen of Mexico, was indicted on drug trafficking
charges in the Northern District of Illinois. See ECF No. 82. He was arrested and released under
pretrial conditions with a $250,000.00 unsecured bond cosigned by Mses. Annette Reyes,
Gabriella Magana, and Patricia Matthews (“Sureties”). See Notice [Non–Document]
03/13/2020; ECF No. 102–10. Shortly after release, Defendant left his home without
authorization and disappeared. See ECF No. 252 at PageID #: 1321. His whereabouts remain
unknown and the unsecured bond was transferred to the Northern District of Ohio. See ECF
Nos. 102–10, 254. The Government now moves for forfeiture of that bond. See ECF No. 518.
Defendant failed to appear at a hearing on the motion, and the Court granted a
continuance. See Minutes of Proceedings [Non–Document] 10/07/2025. The Parties were
Case: 1:19-cr-00523-BYP Doc #: 532 Filed: 12/18/25 1 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:19-CR-00523-14)
2
ordered to brief the issue. See Minutes of Proceedings [Non–Document] 10/07/2025. They
timely complied. See ECF Nos. 518, 527, 528. Again, Defendant did not appear at the
continued hearing, and the Court granted the instant motion. See Minutes of Proceedings [Non-
Document] 12/18/2025. It now expands on that grant and its reasoning.
II. L AW
A bail bond ensures and insures that a criminal defendant will reappear when haled by a
federal court. See United States v. Vaccaro, 51 F.3d 189, 192–93 (9th Cir. 1995). It is not a
guarantee, but a binding contract between government, principal, and surety. See United States
v. D'Anna, 487 F.2d 899, 900 (6th Cir. 1973) (citing United States v. Jackson, 465 F.2d 964
(10th Cir. 1972). Forfeiture of money or property securing a bond “discourage[s] violations of
bail covenants and . . . deter[s] defaults which create unnecessary delay and expense to the
government.” Smith v. United States, 357 F.2d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 1966). Forfeiture is
mandatory under Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f)(1) when a defendant breaches any condition of their
bond. See United States v. Nolan, 564 F.2d 376, 378 (10th Cir. 1977) (holding the district court
had no discretion to not forfeit a bond when defendant failed to appear).
In their briefings, the Parties contest the existence of a breach and the factors for setting
aside forfeiture. The latter, however, is premature. The Court cannot set aside a forfeiture
before actually ordering forfeiture. Because Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f)(1) requires forfeiture when a
bond is breached, the Court assesses and addresses a single question: whether Defendant violated
a condition of his bond.
Case: 1:19-cr-00523-BYP Doc #: 532 Filed: 12/18/25 2 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:19-CR-00523-14)
3
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant was released from federal custody on an unsecured bond with conditions
mirroring those in the Northern District of Illinois including reporting requirements, location
monitoring, and residential detention. See United States v. Reyes, No. 1:20-CR-00151 (N.D. Ill.
filed Mar. 11, 2020). Since disappearing in 2021, he has not reported to pretrial services, not
submitted to location monitoring, and not returned to home detention. See United States v.
Hernandez–Leon, et al., No. 1:19-CR-00523-14 (N.D. Ohio filed August 28, 20129).
Additionally, he has failed to appear as ordered before any federal court in the five years since
absconding. ECF No. 518 at PageID #: 3274. He is, therefore, unequivocally in breach of the
conditions of his unsecured bond, thereby triggering mandatory forfeiture under Fed. R. Crim. P.
46(f)(1).
Defendant’s counsel argues that “the Government has [neither] served nor noticed the
sureties of the Motion for forfeiture.” ECF No. 527 at PageID #: 3534. True enough, notice to a
bond surety is required when the Government moves for judgment and enforcement after
forfeiture; however, notice is not required when a defendant fails to appear and their bond is
merely forfeited. See United States v. Navarrete-Martinez, 776 F.2d 887 (10th Cir. 1985); 3B
Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Criminal § 779
(2024).
IV. CONCLUSION
The Government’s Motion for a Declaration of Bond Forfeiture (ECF No. 518) is
granted. It may move for default judgment under Fed. R. Crim P. 46(f)(3)(A). If default
judgment is entered, the Government may move to enforce the bond forfeiture herein. See Fed.
Case: 1:19-cr-00523-BYP Doc #: 532 Filed: 12/18/25 3 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:19-CR-00523-14)
4
R. Crim. P. 46(f)(3)(C). If necessary, the Clerk of Court shall promptly mail a copy of that
enforcement on the Sureties at their last known address. See id.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
December 18, 2025 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
Case: 1:19-cr-00523-BYP Doc #: 532 Filed: 12/18/25 4 of 4. PageID #: <pageID>