Court filing

MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Russell Eric Stiltner — United States v. Brown et al. (Dkt. 586)

No. 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS · Doc. 586 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

A memorandum opinion of United States District Judge Robert S. Ballou as to defendant Russell Eric Stiltner, filed March 12, 2025 as Document 586 in No. 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia. It explains the court's decision at sentencing to set aside the forfeiture of Stiltner's $25,000 unsecured appearance bond after he failed to appear at an August 26, 2024 hearing, and the magistrate judge's judgment of $1,000 for the United States. The opinion holds that a magistrate judge's order partially setting aside a bond forfeiture is final only when adopted by the district court, and treats the Order of Remittitur and Judgment as a report and recommendation. It finds remittitur under Rule 46(f)(4) improper because the government did not move for default judgment, sets aside the $25,000 forfeiture and grants Stiltner's motion.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 1 of 8
Pageid#: 3358
CLERKS OFFICE US DISTRICT COURT
AT ABINGDON, VA
FILED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT March 12, 2025
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK
ABINGDON DIVISION BY: /s/ Kendra Campbell
DEPUTY CLERK

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff, ) Criminal Action No.: 1:24-CR-17-011
)
v. )
)
RUSSELL ERIC STILTNER, ) By: Hon. Robert S. Ballou
) United States District Court Judge
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Bail Reform Act authorizes a magistrate judge to release a criminal defendant

conditioned upon an agreement that the defendant appear in court and comply with the

conditions of release. This agreement, known as an appearance bond, is not a form of

punishment, and its forfeiture for noncompliance or failure to appear should not serve a punitive

purpose. United States v. Kirkman, 426 F.2d 747, 752 (4th Cir. 1970). The magistrate judge may

revoke the bond of a defendant who fails to appear or violates a condition of release. 18 U.S.C.

§ 3148. The magistrate judge may also order the forfeiture of a revoked bond and set aside the

entire forfeited amount. But, a magistrate judge order of forfeiture which sets aside less than the

entire bond amount is only valid if adopted by the district court. U.S. v. Plechner, 577 F.2d 596,

598 (9th Cir. 1978). While not a dispositive issue of a claim or defense in a criminal case, a bond

forfeiture entered by a magistrate judge that imposes a financial obligation on the defendant

(whether by forfeiture or default judgment) may impact the final disposition of the charged

offense and must be approved by the district judge. Thus, the imposition of a financial obligation

on a criminal defendant must be addressed through a report and recommendation.
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 2 of 8
Pageid#: 3359

Here, Defendant Russell Eric Stiltner failed to appear for a bond status hearing on August 26,

2024, and the magistrate judge ordered the forfeiture of his $25,000 unsecured appearance bond.

Stiltner moved to set aside or to remit some or all of the forfeited amount. The magistrate judge

set aside all but $1,000 and entered judgment in that amount for the United States, despite the

government not seeking a judgment under the bond. Stiltner entered a guilty plea to Count 1 of

the Indictment shortly after the magistrate judge revoked his appearance bond. At sentencing, I

set aside the forfeited bond and the associated judgment entered by the magistrate judge. This

memorandum opinion provides my reasoning.

I. Background

The Government indicted Stiltner with conspiracy to defraud the United States (Count I),

fraud against the United States in connection with emergency unemployment benefits (Count

XI), and mail fraud (Count XIX) in a wide-ranging, multi-defendant case involving the wrongful

application for and award of COVID-19 unemployment benefits. The magistrate judge released

Stiltner pre-trial on a $25,000 unsecured appearance bond on July 25, 2024. Dkt. 287. The bond

required that Stiltner “appear in court as required and . . . [that he] must next appear . . . on

August 26, 2024, at 1:30 p.m.” Dkt. No. 288. The bond admonished Stiltner that “[v]iolating any

of the foregoing conditions of release may result in the immediate issuance of a warrant for your

arrest, a revocation of your release, an order of detention, a forfeiture of any bond, and a

prosecution for contempt of court.” Id.

Stiltner failed to appear at his August 26, 2024 bond review hearing. The magistrate

judge issued a bench warrant, and on September 6, 2024, Stiltner was arrested. The magistrate

judge held a bond revocation hearing on September 23, 2024. She found Stiltner violated the

terms of his appearance bond, revoked the bond, and ordered him detained and that he forfeit the

2
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 3 of 8
Pageid#: 3360

$25,000 unsecured bond. Dkt. 385. The magistrate judge’s forfeiture order gave Stiltner seven

days to file a motion to remit the forfeiture and allowed the Government seven days to respond.

Stiltner timely filed a Motion to Remit or Set Aside Bond Forfeiture in Part under Rules 46(f)(2)

and 46(f)(4) “such that the forfeiture is limited to a more modest amount such as $100 to $500.”

Dkt. No. 393. The Government did not respond to Stiltner’s motion and did not seek

enforcement of the bond forfeiture under Rule 46(f)(3). The magistrate judge entered an Order of

Remittitur and Judgment on March 3, 2025, remitting all but $1,000 of Stiltner’s bond forfeiture.

Dkt. 571, 573.

II. Analysis

The Fourth Circuit has not addressed whether a magistrate judge has the authority to

enter a final order on a bond forfeiture which does not set aside the entire amount, or whether the

magistrate judge may enter a default judgment in favor of the United States against a criminal

defendant. The Ninth Circuit is the only circuit to address this issue, holding that magistrate

judges lack the authority to enter a final order adjudicating a bond forfeiture without district

court approval. See Plechner, 577 F.2d at 598. The court held in Plechner that “[a] forfeiture

ordered by a magistrate is valid if adopted by the district court.” Id. (citing Untied States v. Ritte,

558 F.2d 926 (9th Cir. 1977)). There, the district court enforced the magistrate judge’s forfeiture

order only after adopting and reiterating it. Since Plechner, magistrate judges addressing the

amount of a forfeited bond to set aside have done so through a report and recommendation. See

United States v. Alrahib, 627 F.Supp.3d 1288 (2022) (a magistrate judge issued a report and

3
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 4 of 8
Pageid#: 3361

recommendation instead of an order due to the Eleventh Circuit’s lack of guidance on whether

magistrates can declare a bond forfeited).1

The Ninth’s Circuit’s finding is supported by the legislative history of the Federal

Magistrates Act which suggests that district courts may assign magistrate judges additional

duties including “the exoneration or forfeiture of bonds in criminal cases.” S. Rep. No. 625, 94th

Cong., 2d Sess. 10; H.R. Rep. No. 1609, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 12 (1976). Such assignments come

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(3) and permit a court to assign “such additional duties as are not

inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Here, the magistrate judge’s

reappointment order authorizes her to perform duties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a) and (b).

Specifically, it provides “[t]o the extent not previously specified, the United States Magistrate

Judge is authorized to perform all other functions and duties as may be permitted under any

statute of the United States, by the federal rules, or by local rules of this court.” Standing Order

In the Matter of the Reappointment of Pamela Meade Sargent United States Magistrate Judge

for the Western District of Virginia, June 25, 2021.

1
The Court found no cases where a magistrate judge issued a final forfeiture order on a criminal
appearance bond, secured or unsecured, against a defendant or their surety. Instead, magistrate
judges have addressed these issues through a report and recommendation, leaving final bond
forfeiture decisions to district court judges. See United States v. Balbuena, No. 8:08-CR-271-T-
27TGW, 2009 WL 87413, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 13, 2009); United States v. Morris, No. 2:17-
CR-40, 2018 WL 1865889, at *3 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2018), report and recommendation
approved, No. 2:17-CR-40, 2018 WL 1863651 (S.D. Ga. Apr. 18, 2018); United States v.
Mustafa, No. 7:12CW32-2, 2013 WL 5873284, at *1 (W.D. Va. Oct. 30, 2013); United States v.
Vasquez-Velasquez, No. 116CR00093LJOSKO, 2016 WL 5874840, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 24,
2016), report and recommendation adopted, No. 116CR00093LJOSKO, 2016 WL 5870727
(E.D. Cal. Oct. 6, 2016); United States v. Perez-Verdugo, No. 13-CR-00528-BEN-1, 2019 WL
6218782, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, No. 13-CR-528-
BEN, 2020 WL 231092 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2020); United States v. Morris, No. 4:24-CR-70-2,
2025 WL 466620, at *1 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 23, 2025), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:24-
CR-70-2, 2025 WL 460746 (S.D. Ga. Feb. 11, 2025).
4
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 5 of 8
Pageid#: 3362

The magistrate judge, pursuant to § 636(b)(3), may render an initial decision on a bond

forfeiture and set aside, but “the district judge retains the authority to review any magistrate

judge’s decision or recommendation whether or not objections were timely filed.” Fed. R. Crim.

P. 59 Advisory Committee’s Notes to 2005 Adoption. This discretionary review aligns with the

Supreme Court’s ruling in Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154 (1985). See also Matthews v.

Weber, 423 U.S. 261, 270–71 (1976). Notably, the Supreme Court stressed that “[a] magistrate

acts ‘under the supervision of the district judges’ when he accepts a referral, and that authority

for making final decisions remains at all times with the district judge.” Mathews, 423 U.S. at 270

(quoting S.Rep.No.371, 90th Cong., 1st Sess., 12 (1967)). The district court must review and

adopt (or not) a magistrate judge’s decision to impose a full or partial bond forfeiture on a

criminal defendant.

Magistrate judges occupy a unique position to consider the forfeiture of a bond and what

amount, if any, to set aside. They see the defendant at the initial appearance and make the

important decision of whether to admit that defendant to bail, and if so, under what conditions.

The magistrate judge addresses a criminal defendant’s violations of any conditions of release and

decides whether revocation, forfeiture, or setting aside the forfeiture are warranted.

Ultimately, the magistrate judge lacks the authority in this criminal case to enter a

monetary award in favor of the United States – whether by way of forfeiture or judgment. If a

magistrate judge does not set aside a forfeiture in full, the final decision of the extent of the bond

forfeiture rests with the district judge. To hold otherwise would infringe upon the decisions a

district court must exercise where appropriate in the disposal of the charges against a defendant.2

2
That the order by the magistrate judge is not final until adopted by the district court is consistent
with Fed. R. Crim. P 46(i) which allows the court to dispose of a charged offense by forfeiture of
an appearance bond for failure to appear “if a fine in the amount of the property’s value would be
5
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 6 of 8
Pageid#: 3363

Accordingly, a magistrate judge may enter an order under Rule 46(f) to forfeit a bond for a

violation of a bond’s condition and may set aside the forfeiture in full. But, a magistrate judge’s

order to partially set aside or remit a defendant’s bond becomes final only when accepted by the

district court. A decision which results in a financial obligation by a criminal defendant either by

forfeiture or default judgment under Rule 46(f)(3)(A) may be handled by the magistrate judge on

a report and recommendation basis. Here, I treat the magistrate judge’s Order of Remittitur and

Judgment as a report and recommendation.

When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation, a court reviews de novo

the portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely

objection has been made. Elijah v. Dunbar, 66 F.4th 454, 460 (4th Cir. 2023). In the absence of

objections, the district court reviews the report and recommendation for clear error. Farmer v.

McBride, 177 F. App'x 327, 331 (4th Cir. 2006) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th

Cir. 1983)). The district judge may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings

and recommendations in the report and recommendation. Id. Neither Stiltner nor the Government

objected to the magistrate judge’s order to set aside all but $1,000.00 of the bond and to enter

judgment in favor of the United States in that amount. So I review the magistrate judge’s Order

of Remittitur and Judgment for clear error.

The Bail Reform Act of 1984, 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b) empowers a district court to revoke

release if it finds: (1) probable cause that the defendant committed a crime while on release or

clear and convincing evidence of another release violation, and (2) that no conditions can prevent

flight or danger to others, or that the defendant is unlikely to comply with any conditions. 18

an appropriate sentence for the charged offense.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(i); see also 18 U.S.C.
§ 3146(d).
6
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 7 of 8
Pageid#: 3364

U.S.C. § 3148; see also United States v. Santiago, 826 F.2d 499, 504 (7th Cir. 1987). Bond

forfeiture proceedings are governed by Rule 46. Stiltner moves for the court to set aside or remit

his forfeit bond under Rules 46(f)(2) and 46 (f)(4).

Under Rule 46(f), a court must forfeit a bond if a defendant violates a condition,

including failure to appear. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 46(f). The court may later set aside the

forfeiture, in whole or in part, if “justice does not require” forfeiture. Id. If the forfeiture stands,

the court may enter a default judgment only upon the government’s motion. Id. Remittitur under

Rule 46(f)(4) is permitted only after a default judgment. Here, the government did not move for

default judgment. Thus, remittitur under Rule 46(f)(4) was improper, and the magistrate judge

erred to the extent her order relied on it.

Under Rule 46(f)(2), whether a bond forfeiture should be set aside in the interests of

justice is entrusted to the sound discretion of the district court. Kirkman, 426 F.2d at 751. In

determining whether justice requires a forfeiture be set aside or remitted, courts consider factors

including “(1) the willfulness of the breach, (2) the expense, inconvenience, and delay to the

government, and (3) any other mitigating circumstances.” Id at *1. See also United States v.

Mattero, 752 F. Supp. 2d 78, 80 (D. Me. 2010) (citing United States v. Dolton, 909 F.2d 650,

657 (1st Cir. 1990); United States v. Cervantes, 672 F.2d 460, 461 (9th Cir. 1982)). The party

seeking a remittitur bears the burden of establishing that justice does not require forfeiture.

United States v. Logan, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48178, *2 (S.D.Cal. 2009) (citing Cervantes, 672

F.2d at 461).

Considering the record and circumstances of this case, I find the factors support setting

aside the forfeiture in whole. Stiltner willfully violated the Court’s release conditions by failing

to appear for his bond review hearing. However, the record does not demonstrate that Stiltner’s

7
Case 1:24-cr-00017-RSB-PMS Document 586 Filed 03/12/25 Page 8 of 8
Pageid#: 3365

actions caused the Government any significant expense or prejudice in the prosecution of its

case. Authorities arrested him ten days after he missed his August 26, 2024 hearing and he

promptly signed a plea agreement six days after his arrest. Thus, the only harm to the

Government was a short delay which did not affect the trial or any other aspect of this case.

Further, Stiltner has limited resources, making the $25,000 bond amount excessive, punitive, and

inappropriate. At sentencing, the Court ordered Stiltner to pay restitution of $16,898 and found

that he lacked the financial ability to pay a fine or to pay interest on the restitution amount.

Ultimately, the purpose of enforcing a bond is to ensure the defendant appears at trial, not to

exact a measure of punishment. See Kirkman, 426 F.2d at 752. See also United States v.

Famiglietti, 548 F. Supp. 2d 398, 407 (S.D. Tex. 2008). Requiring Stiltner to pay the forfeited

bond when he financially does not have the means to pay a fine and where the Government never

sought enforcement under Rule 46(f)(3)(A) would be unjust. Accordingly, I set aside the $25,000

forfeiture and GRANT Stiltner’s motion.

Entered: March 12, 2025

Robert S. Ballou
Robert S. Ballou
United States District Judge

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.vawd.131646.586.0.pdf
Size: 208,564 bytes
SHA-256: 61b4a1b1618e95fa3e1d1eea96938474703b7d3d822ad5d2aa12cb5a4e65a7fd
Our copy: gov.uscourts.vawd.131646.586.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)