Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02654/USCOURTS-ca8-09-02654-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank M. Butts
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-2654

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Arkansas.

Frank M. Butts, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: March 8, 2010

 Filed: March 15, 2010

___________

Before BYE, ARNOLD, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Frank M. Butts appeals the district court's1

 revocation of his supervised release

and the imposition of a nine month term of incarceration. Butts contends the district

court abused its discretion in revoking supervised release; he also contends the nine

month sentence is unreasonable. We affirm.

Upon the commencement of his supervised release term in July 2006, Butts was

required to make monthly payments of $1,000 on a $750,000 restitution obligation

Appellate Case: 09-2654 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644194
2

The amount of restitution was initially $750,000. Butts paid $190,000 of that

amount at the time of his original sentencing.

-2-

stemming from his conviction for Medicaid fraud.2

 In January 2009, the government

filed a petition to revoke supervised release because Butts was only paying $100 per

month. During the course of the revocation proceedings, Butts agreed to be deposed

and to produce documents relative to his financial affairs which revealed he had

monthly income of over $13,000. After a revocation hearing held on July 9, 2009, the

district court found Butts willfully violated the terms of his supervised release and

sentenced him to nine months in prison followed by two years of supervised release.

We find no clear error in the factual findings which support the revocation and

no abuse of discretion in the decision to revoke supervised release. See United States

v. Carothers, 337 F.3d 1017, 1019 (8th Cir. 2003) (setting forth the standard of

review). We reject the claim the district court abused its discretion by not crediting

Butts's allegation that the probation office improperly interfered with his ability to

work. We also reject the claim that Butts's due process and Sixth Amendment rights

were violated when the district court considered a violation memorandum as evidence

at the revocation hearing. See United States v. Martin, 382 F.3d 840, 844 n.4 (8th Cir.

2004) (holding that Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) does not apply to

revocation hearings). Finally, we reject the claim that the nine month sentence is

unreasonable because Butts will not be able to collect social security disability

benefits and income during his incarceration. Butts knew he risked additional

incarceration by failing to pay restitution in the amount ordered. The loss of social

security income is a direct consequence of Butts's decision to ignore the terms of his

supervised release; this fact does not make Butts's sentence unreasonable.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-2654 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2010 Entry ID: 3644194