IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 27, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
NECOLE WARD, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Defendant in the above-referenced action has requested round-trip funding for appearance on an arraignment, now scheduled for February 3, 2009, which would be the first hearing after she was previously ordered released. Defendant is present residing in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Title 18, § 4285 does not authorize round-trip funding. See United States v. Vaughn, 2002 WL 1067456 *1; United States v. James, 762 F. Supp 1,2 (D.D.C. 1991); United States v. Haley, 504 F. Supp, 1124, 1129 (E.D. Pa. 1981); United States v. Gonzales, 684 F. Supp. 838 (D. Vt. 1988). Nor does the statute anticipate that the taxpayers must find every further appearance in the action by defendant, including subsistence during a hearing or trial.
Moreover, defendant is free to waive her pre-plea, or pre-trial appearances, and for arraignments, defendant can opt for a video-conference procedure. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f). Such a procedure could easily be facilitated by the Federal Defender's Office in Las Vegas.
Accordingly, for this appearance, the Marshal is ordered to fund one-way transportation from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Sacramento, California, with appropriate subsistence for the arraignment hearing. In the alternative, defendant can opt to waive her appearance or consent to video-conferencing. If defendant chooses to avail herself of the alternatives to appearance, she shall notify the Marshal forthwith.
Defendant, through her counsel, shall deliver this order to the Marshal if a personal appearance is to be made.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.