Dеfendant-appellant Vincent Gigante and his sureties (collectively “Appellants”) apрeal from an order entered April 8,1996 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Eugene H. Nickerson, Judge, that denied reconsideration of the district court’s imposition of a bail conditiоn requiring the forfeiture of bail collateral if defendant-appellant Vincent Gigante cоmmits a federal, state, or local crime while released on bail. Gigante, who is charged with various offenses relating to his alleged role as the boss of the Genovese organized crime family, is awaiting the outcome of a hearing on his competence to stand trial. Although Gigante had originally been released on personal recognizance, the district court in March 1996 modified the conditions of Gigante’s release, ordering him to post a $1,000,000 appearance bond, which is secured by the family homes of the sureties (Gigante’s three children and their spouses), аnd subjecting his release to the additional condition that he not commit a crime. Appellаnts argue on appeal that the district court lacks the authority to order the forfeiture оf their bond and collateral if Gigante commits a crime while released on bail.
The partiеs disagree over whether Appellants’ challenge to the forfeitability of their bond and collateral is ripe for review. While a challenge to the imposition of a condition of release is immediately appeal-able,
see
18 U.S.C. § 3145(c);
United States
In its order, the district court characterized the potential forfeiture of Appellants’ bond as a “condition” of Gigantе’s release, stating that: “Gigante will be released on the condition that the sureties will forfeit their collateral if he commits a federal, state, or local crime during his release.”
United States v. Gigante,
Rule 46(e)(1) explicitly authorizes forfeiture of bail for “breach of condition of a bond.” Appellants argue that this authorization was implicitly narrowed by the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 3142(c)(l)(B)(xi), which authorizes as a condition of bail that the person released “execute an agreement to forfeit [property] uрon failing to appear as required,” and 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(l)(B)(xii), which authorizes the condition that “solvent sureties ... agree[ ] to forfeit [property] to assure appearance of the person [released] as required.” Based upon these provisions, Appellants contend that prоperty which secures a bail bond may be forfeited only upon the defendant’s failure to aрpear.
Section 3142(c)(l)(B)(xiv) authorizes, however, the imposition of
“any other condition
that is reasonably necеssary to assure the appearance of the person as required
and to assure thе safety of any other person and the community.” Id.
(emphasis added). Reading all of the foregоing provisions together, we conclude, in accord with the First, Fifth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits and substantially for thе reasons stated in Judge Nickerson’s memorandum and order,
see Gigante,
We accordingly affirm the order of the district court.
Notes
. Rule 46 provides in pertinent part:
(a) Release Prior to Trial. Eligibility for release prior to trial shall be in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3142 and 3144.
(e) Forfeiture.
(1) Declaration. If therе is a breach of condition of a bond, the district court shall declare a forfeiture of thе bail.
(2) Setting Aside. The court may direct that a forfeiture be set aside in whole or in part, upon suсh conditions as the court may impose, if a person released upon execution of an appearance bond with a surety is subsequently surrendered by the surely into the custody of the court or if it otherwise appears that justice does not require the forfeiture.
(3)Enforcemеnt. When a forfeiture has not been set aside, the court shall on motion enter a judgment of default and execution may issue thereon____