In United States v. Parrett, 2009 WL 825710 (S.D.Ohio March 26, 2009) the bond recited that it continued in force after conviction until the defendant surrendered to serve her sentence. It also allowed her to travel to California and Arizona. After she was convicted, the court let her go back to Arizona but ordered house arrest and electronic monitoring. She returned to Arizona but did not contact the authorities there to arrange for the electronic monitoring and did not appear for sentencing. The court forfeited the bond and the surety moved to set aside the forfeiture arguing that the surety's risk was increased by the defendant's post conviction release. The court denied the motion and noted that the bond itself provided that it remained in effect after conviction and that the defendant could travel to Arizona. The order for electronic monitoring did not increase the surety's risk.