Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01996/USCOURTS-ca10-88-01996-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lawrence Clark Reber
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

PUBLISH 

. . 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

FILED 

Unit.ed St.at.es Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit· 

MAY 301989 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 88-1996 

LAWRENCE CLARK REBER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for· the District of Utah 

(D.C. No. 83-131A) 

Submitted on the Briefs: 

Gary w. Pendleton of St. George, Utah, for Defendant-Appellant. 

Brent D. Ward, United States Attorney, and Gregory C. Diamond, 

Assistant U.S. Attorney, Salt Lake City, Utah, for PlaintiffAppellee. 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

SEYMOUR, Circuit Judge. 

Appellate Case: 88-1996 Document: 01019961451 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 1 
Defendant Lawrence Clark Reber appeals from an order of the 

district court that revoked his probation, reinstated it for the 

maximum period allowable by law, and ordered him to pay certain 

additional restitution. Because the findings upon which the trial 

court based revocation of Reber's probation are without support in 

the record, we reverse. 1 

I • 

Reber pled guilty to receiving stolen property and was 

sentenced in February 1984 to six months incarceration followed by 

three years probation. The probation was conditioned on payment 

of restitution "to his victims within EIGHTEEN (18) MONTHS 

according to a schedule established by the U.S. Probation Office." 

Rec., vol. I, doc. 25. Reber was released on probation on 

July 17, 1984. In May 1985, Reber petitioned the district court 

to set the amount of restitution. A hearing on the subject was 

noticed for October. This hearing was cancelled pursuant to a 

stipulation between the government, the probation office, and 

Reber, that Reber would pay $12,500 restitution for losses 

incurred by one of the victims, Mr. Ron Johnson, when his property 

1 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 88-1996 Document: 01019961451 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 2 
was stolen. Reber borrowed $12,500 and paid that amount to the 

probation office. 

T~e adequacy an~ finality of this stipulation was cast into 

doubt almost immediately. Reber's crime involved the theft of two 

semi-tractors. In preparation for the October hearing, the 

probation office had attempted to contact the owners of both 

trucks in order to assess their losses. It failed to make contact 

with one of the owners, Mr. Gary Hudson. A short time after the 

stipulation, Hudson approached the probation office and it became 

clear that the $12,500 would not cover his losses. 

In an effort to remedy this oversight, the court held a 

series of restitution hearings in the summer of 1986. The victims 

testified about their losses, and Reber presented evidence of his 

inability to pay additional restition. The court concluded that 

the stipulation was not binding, and asked the probation officer 

to assess the situation and to make a recommendation to the court. 

The court entered an "Order of Restitution'' requiring that the 

$12,500 be split between the two victims. 2 The order recites that 

the court has "taken into consideration the defendant's current 

situation as provided by the defendant in testimony and also the 

information provided to the court by the United Sates Probation 

Office." Rec., vol. I, doc. 192. The court made no findings 

2 The money had been held in escrow pending resolution of the 

dispute. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 88-1996 Document: 01019961451 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 3 
concerning the amount of losses claimed by the victims, nor any 

specific findings concerning Reber's ability to pay. See 18 

u.s.c. § 3664(a) (Supp. IV 1986). The court ordered the probation 

office to report back in approximately one year concerning Reber's 

financial condition, apparently leaving the door open for payment 

of further restitution of an indeterminate amount. 

The probation officer monitored the situation and reported to 

the court that he had unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an 

agreement from Reber to either settle the amount of restitution 

with the victims or to extend his probation for an additional 

period of time in hopes that his financial condition would improve 

and he could afford additional restitution. Reber had offered an 

additional $5,ooo· to the victims, but they refused to settle. He 

declined to voluntarily extend his probation. Based on the 

report, the court ordered Reber to show cause why his probation 

should not be revoked. A preliminary revocation hearing was held 

before a magistrate on September 15, 1987. At that time, the 

probation officer testified that Reber had thoroughly acquainted 

him with his current financial position, rec., vol. IV, at 20, and 

that his financial situation had not changed from the prior year, 

id. at 21. The district court held a revocation hearing on 

December 18, 1987. At the hearing, Reber took issue with the 

calculation of losses of the victims, which included loss of 

income. He also raised his inability to make further payments. 

-4-

Appellate Case: 88-1996 Document: 01019961451 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 4 
On June 3, 1988, the court held a final restitution hearing. 

It issued a written order on June 27 revoking Reber's probation. 

In the same order, the court reinstated probation, set restitution 

at approximately $34,000, and ordered Reber to make monthly 

payments of $150 towards the unpaid balance of that total. In its 

order, and when asked to make specific findings at the revocation 

hearing, the court based its revocation"· •• upon Defendant's 

failure to keep faith in reporting with the Court to keep it fully 

advised regarding Defendant's financial circumstances." Brief of 

Appellant, Addendum at 2; see also rec., vol. VI, at 11. 

II. 

Revocation of probation is within the discretion of the 

district court. See United States v. Rife, 835 F.2d 154, 156 (7th 

Cir. 1987). "The district court's discretion does, however, have 

limitations, and we have authority to review revocation decisions 

for fundamental unfairness or for an abuse of discretion." United 

States v. Hamilton, 708 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1983). See also 

United States v. Simmons, 812 F.2d 561, 565 (9th Cir. 1987). 

"Probation may be revoked if the district court is reasonably 

satisfied that a violation of probation conditions has occurred." 

Rife, 835 F.2d at 156. We have reviewed the record in this case, 

and we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in 

-5-

Appellate Case: 88-1996 Document: 01019961451 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 5 
revoking Reber's probation. 3 In our review, we could find no 

evidence supporting the court's conclusion that Reber failed to 

provide financial information to the court. In fact, the 

probation officer's testimony was to the contrary. The only 

specific failure to cooperate with the court or the probation 

office recounted in the record is Reber's refusal to consent to an 

extension of his probation in order to facilitate further 

restitution. Reber had no obligation to extend his probation, nor 

was there a court order obligating him to pay any specific sum of 

further restitution. Reber's failure to do either thus cannot be 

construed as a failure to cooperate. 

The district court's order is reversed, and the case is 

remanded with instructions to release Reber under the terms of the 

original sentence and order of probation. 

3 Reber makes a number of other claims regarding the court's 

order. Because the court's abuse of discretion is sufficient 

grounds for reversal, we do not address these claims. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 88-1996 Document: 01019961451 Date Filed: 05/30/1989 Page: 6