U.S. v. Gonzales

13 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Anderson

    21-cr-30148-8-DWD (S.D. Ill. May. 5, 2022)

    However, of the courts to decide this issue, the statute does not authorize payment for defendant's return home after the proceeding. See United States v. James, 762 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991) (citing United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 841 (D. Vt. 1988); United States v. Haley, 504 F.Supp. 1124, 1129 (E.D. Pa. 1981)). The statute further places the burden on defendant to demonstrate that she "is financially unable to provide the necessary transportation."

  2. United States v. Lopez

    No. 21CR3102-JLS (S.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2023)

    See e.g., United States v. James, 762 F.Supp.1, 2 (D.C. 1991) (recognizing that legislative history reflects that statute's “provisions would only be applicable to necessary direct travel to the receiving court for subsequent appearance.”); United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 841 (D.Vt. 1988) (“There is no authority to pay for defendant's return [trip] after the court proceeding.”).

  3. United States v. Cepeda

    Case No. 2:17-mj-00767-PAL-2 (D. Nev. Aug. 17, 2017)

    This statute only authorizes payment of one-way travel to a court appearance. It does not provide judicial authority for costs of return travel back to his or her residence. See e.g. United States v. Gonzales, 684 F. Supp. 838, 841 (D. Vt. 1988) ("There is no authority to pay for defendant's return to [home] after the court proceeding."); United States v. Sandoval, 812 F. Supp. 1156, 1157 (D. Kan. 1993); United States v. Ibarra, No. 13-cr-3170-GPC, 2014 WL 4352063 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2014); United States v. Centeno, No. 09-cr-3120-MJL, 2009 WL 3334144 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009).

  4. United States v. Mouzon

    CASE NO. 1:12-CR-301-04 (M.D. Pa. Mar. 31, 2014)   Cited 9 times
    Observing that the legislative history reveals Congress's intent that the statute authorize funds for travel only to the district

    Numerous district courts and one appellate court have concluded that Section 4285 does not authorize the United States Marshals Service to provide subsistence expenses to a defendant for lodging during a trial, nor for travel back to his or her residence. Untied States v. Haley, 504 F. Supp. 1124, 1129 (E.D. Pa. 1981); United States v. Gonzales, 684 F. Supp. 838 (D. VT. 1988); see also United States v. James, 762 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1991); United States v. Birdhorse, No. 2:07-CR-65, 2008 WL 2358634 at *2 (D.N.D. 2007). While Mouzon may be able to invoke Section 4285 for his transportation to court, he must demonstrate financial inability to provide transportation.

  5. United States v. Lindsey

    Case No. 2:11-cr-00217-LDG-CWH (D. Nev. Dec. 21, 2011)

    Section 4285 only allows for payment of one-way travel to a court appearance, and not for costs of return travel. See e.g. United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 841 (D. Vt. 1998) ("There is no authority to pay for defendant's return to [home] after the court proceeding."); United States v. Sandoval, 812 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D. Kan. 1993); United States v. Birdhorse, 2007 WL 2358634 *2 (D.N.D.); UnitedStates v. Headden, 2009 WL 2960382 (D. Ariz.).

  6. United States v. Head

    Case No.: Cr.S-08-093-KJM (E.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2011)

    The undersigned is unaware of any case interpretation of § 4285 which would permit defendant's round trip request. See cases only permitting payment for one-way travel: United States v. Centeno, 2009 WL 3334144 (S.D. Cal. 2009); United States v. Miracle, 2009 WL 3211104 (E.D. Ky. 2009); United States v. Headden, 2009 WL 2960382 (D. Ariz. 2009); United States v. Birdhorse, 2007 WL 2358634 *2 (D.N.D. 2007); United States v. Vaughn, 2002 WL 1067456 *1 (D. Kan. 2002); United States v. Sandoval, 812 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D. Kan. 1993); United States v. James, 762 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991; United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 841 (D. Vt. 1988). While defendant may be seeking a judicial wink at the statute for logical reasons, the court is not authorized to expend funds except as directed by statute. Therefore, the Marshal is authorized and directed to furnish the above named defendant, Charles Head, with transportation and subsistence expenses for travel from Pittsburgh, PA to Sacramento, California on December 7, 2011 to timely make his appearance on December 8, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. The United States Marshal's Office must furnish Charles Head with money for subsistence expenses to his destination, not to exceed the amount authorized as a per diem allowance for travel under section 5702(a) of Title 5, United States Code.

  7. United States v. Otake

    CR.S. 11-00322-KJM (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011)

    The undersigned is unaware of any case interpretation of § 4285 which would permit defendant's round trip request. See cases only permitting payment for one-way travel: United States v. Centeno, 2009 WL 3334144 (S.D. Cal. 2009); United States v. Miracle, 2009 WL 3211104 (E.D. Ky. 2009); United States v. Headden,2009 WL 2960382 (D. Ariz. 2009); United States v. Birdhorse, 2007 WL 2358634 *2 (D.N.D. 2007); United States v. Vaughn, 2002 WL 1067456 *1 (D. Kan. 2002); United States v. Sandoval, 812 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D. Kan. 1993); United States v. James, 762 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991; United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 841 (D. Vt. 1988). While defendant may be seeking a judicial wink at the statute for logical reasons, the court is not authorized to expend funds except as directed by statute. Therefore, the Marshal is authorized and directed to furnish the above named defendant, DANIEL OTAKE, with transportation and subsistence expenses for travel from Hawi, Hawaii from Kailua Kona International Airport to Sacramento, California on December 14, 2011 to timely make his initial appearance on December 15, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.. The United States Marshal's Office must furnish Mr. Otake with money for subsistence expenses to his destination, not to exceed the amount authorized as a per diem allowance for travel under section 5702(a) of Title 5, United States Code.

  8. U.S. v. Centeno

    Case No. 09CR3120-L (S.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2009)   Cited 6 times

    However, section 4285 only allows payment of one-way travel to a court appearance, and not for costs of return travel. See e.g.United States v. Gonzales , 684 F.Supp. 838, 841 (D.Vt.1988) ("There is no authority to pay for defendant's return to [home] after the court proceeding."); United States v. Sandoval , 812 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D.Kan. 1993); United States v. Birdhorse , 2007 WL 2358634, *2 (D.N.D. 2007); United States v. Badalamenti , 1986 WL 8309 (S.D.N.Y. 1986). Further, the statute does not authorize payment for subsistence or lodging during trial.See e.g. United States v. James , 762 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991) ("while the statute authorizes payment to travel to the court, once at the site of the court, the statute does not authorize payment of subsistence during the course of the trial or hearing"); United States v. Haley , 504 F.Supp.1124, 1129 (E.D. Pa. 1981) ("[T]he statute does not authorize subsistence funding for defendants once they arrive at the place of trial and during trial, which could be extended."); Sandoval , 812 F.Supp. at 1157 ("[W]hile

  9. U.S. v. Headden

    09-6406M (D. Ariz. Sep. 9, 2009)   Cited 2 times

    "[The statute] does not authorize payment for subsistence during the period of the hearing, United States v. Sandoval, 812 F.Supp. 1156, 1157 (D.Kan. 1993), or for defendant's return home after the proceeding." United States v. Vaughan, 2002 WL 1067456, * 1 (D.Kan. 2002) (citing United States v. James, 762 F.Supp. 1, 2 (D.D.C. 1991); United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 841-42 (D.Vt. 1988). The Pretrial Services Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3152- 3156, requires the Pretrial Services Agency to provide food and shelter to indigent defendants during trial.

  10. U.S. v. Forest

    597 F. Supp. 2d 163 (D. Me. 2009)   Cited 11 times
    Concluding that the standard for reimbursement under 18 U.S.C. § 4285 is not the same as the standard for appointment of counsel

    It allows for payment of subsistence expenses only during the course of travel, and not after a defendant has arrived at the place of appearance, even if appearance is required for an extended period of time. No. 2:07-cr-65, 2007 WL 2358634, at *2, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61069, at *5-6 (D.N.D. Aug. 17, 2007) (citation omitted); United States v. Gonzales, 684 F.Supp. 838, 840 (D.Vt. 1988) (describing the reasoning in Lee as "troubling"). In Gonzales, the District Court in Vermont supported its conclusion that the statute authorizes payment for intra-district transportation by observing that to refuse to reimburse would be contrary to the public policy that "strongly encourages individuals awaiting trial to maintain family and employment ties."