The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Candoli, 888 F.2d 130 (9th Cir. 1989):
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).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.