Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01449/USCOURTS-ca8-03-01449-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otho Leonard Rater
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James E. Gritzner, United States District Judge for the

Southern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-1449

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Southern

Otho Leonard Rater, * District of Iowa.

*

Appellant. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: December 22, 2003

Filed: April 30, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After a bench trial, the district court1

 convicted Otho Rater of five counts of

willfully failing to pay child support, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 228(a)(3), and

sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 months imprisonment and one year

supervised release. On appeal, Mr. Rater’s counsel has moved to withdraw, and has

filed a brief under Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), arguing the government

failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rater acted willfully in failing to

Appellate Case: 03-1449 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/30/2004 Entry ID: 1762382 
-2-

pay his support. Mr. Rater has not filed a pro se supplemental brief, but he has

moved separately to stay execution of his sentence, or for its early termination.

The testimony and stipulated facts, viewed most favorably to the verdict, show

that Mr. Rater worked only sporadically and turned down or left jobs despite his

substantial past-due support obligations, and that Mr. Rater failed to seek

employment commensurate with his capabilities; his only regular voluntary payments

during the charged time period were de minimis, and were made to avoid further

orders of contempt in state court. Also, he had plotted with his girlfriend to disguise

assets. We believe this evidence was sufficient to permit a reasonable trier of fact to

conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Rater acted willfully in violation of

section 228(a)(3). See United States v. Robinson, 217 F.3d 560, 564 (8th Cir.)

(standard of review), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 999 (2000); cf. United States v. Harrison,

188 F.3d 985, 987 (8th Cir. 1999) (defendant must have had ability to pay before he

can be found to have failed willfully to pay child support); United States v. Ballek,

170 F.3d 871, 873, 875 (9th Cir.) (absentee parent cannot avoid child-support

obligation by refusing to accept gainful employment; government need not prove

parent’s failure to accept employment was caused by desire to withhold payments or

any similar evil motive), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 853 (1999).

Mr. Rater argued on appeal that his convictions were multiplicitous because

the facts that formed the basis for them would support a conviction for a single

offense only. See United States v. Street, 66 F.3d 969, 975 (8th Cir. 1995). Mr.

Rater, however, did not raise this issue in the trial court, and neither he nor his

counsel submitted a brief on the matter despite our direction to do so. We therefore

decline to address the issue.

We have carefully reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80

(1988), and have found no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, we grant counsel’s

Appellate Case: 03-1449 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/30/2004 Entry ID: 1762382 
-3-

motion to withdraw, and we affirm. We deny the pending pro se motions, and we

deny the government’s pending motion as moot.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-1449 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/30/2004 Entry ID: 1762382