888 F. 2d 130 - United States v. Candoli
888 F2d 130 United States v. Candoli
888 F.2d 130
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Diane CANDOLI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 88-5407.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted July 25, 1989.*
Decided Oct. 11, 1989.
Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI and RYMER, Circuit Judges.
Advertisement
MEMORANDUM**
The district court's wide discretion in deciding whether to set aside all or part of a forfeiture is not easily abused. United States v. Minor, 846 F.2d 1184, 1190 (9th Cir.1988). There was no abuse of discretion here: Defendant's four-month fugitive escapade was willful, even if not the product of a calm, detached thought process; the Government suffered cost and inconvenience as a result; and defendant's emotional distress at the prospect of serving her sentence far from home was not a persuasive mitigating circumstance. Cf. United States v. Abernathy, 757 F.2d 1012, 1016 (9th Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 854 (1985) (defendants' failure to appear based on fear for their lives held to be insufficient mitigating circumstance).
AFFIRMED.