### F I LE D U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E LEVE NTH CI RCUI T Jul y 14, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN C L E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 04- 15530 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -000 07 -C R -W C O -2-1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , ve r s us B R A D F O R D W I L L I A M D A V I S , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju l y 14, 2005) B efo re B L A C K , H U L L an d W IL S O N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: B r a df or d W i l l i a m D a vi s appe a l s hi s s e nt e nc e i m pos e d a f t e rr e voc a t i on of p r o b a tio n f

o rw illf u l f a ilu r e to p a y c o u r t- o r d e r e d r e s titu tio n f o rp a s t d u e c h ildIn Bo nn e r v. Ci ty of Pricha rd, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 ( 11th Cir. 1981) (en ba nc), this Court 1 a dopte d a s b indingpre c e dent all de c isi ons of th e former F if th C ircuit ha nde d down p ri or

to c los e of business on September 30, 1981. 2 s u p p o r t. W e a f

f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u r t. A di s tr i c tc our tm a y r e voke ade f e nda nt ’ s t e rm of

pr oba t i on a nd r e turn the de f e nda ntt o pr i s on w he n the de f e nda ntvi ol a t e s ac ondi t i on of tha tpr oba t i on. 18 U .S .C . § 3 5 6 5 ( a ) ( 2 ) . “‘I n ap r o b a tio n r e v o c a tio n p r o c e e d in g , a ll th a t is r e q u ir e d is thatthe evi dence re as on abl y s at i sf y the j ud ge thatthe cond uctof the prob at i on er has notbeen as go od as re qu i re d b y the cond i t i on s of probat i on ; evi dence that w ou l d est abl i sh gu i l tbeyond a r ea sonabl e dou bti s notre qu i re d. ’ ” U ni ted Stat es v. O 'Q ui nn , 6 8 9 F . 2 d 1 3 5 9 , 1 3 6 1 ( 1 1 th C i r . 1 9 8 2 ) ( c i t a t i o n o m i tt e d ) . We r e v i e w a d is tr ic t c o u r t’s r e v o c a tio n o f p r o b a tio n f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n . I

d. W he r e the a l l e ge d vi ol a t i on i s the f a i l ur e t o pa y r e s t i tut i on oraf i ne , the c o u r t m u s t f

in d th e p r o b a tio n e r ’s f

a ilu r e to p a y w a s w illf

u l, i . e. , the prob at i on er h a d th e m e a n s o rab ility to p a y af in e o rr e s titu tio n a s o r d e r e d a n d p u rp o s e f u lly d id n o t d o s o . B e a rde n v . G e o r g ia , 103 S . C t . 2064, 2070 ( 1983) . T he gove rnm e nt m a y e s t abl i s h w i l l f

ul f a i l ur e t o pa y by pr oduc i ng e vi de nc e the de f e nda ntha d f

unds a v a ilab le to p a y r e s titu tio n a n d d id n o t d o s o . U n ite d S ta te s v . B o s w e ll , 605 F . 2d 17 1, 17 5 (5th C i r. 19 79 ). W i l l ful ness re qu i re s the go vernm entt o p rove the l aw 1 i m pos e d aduty on the de f e nda nt , the de f

e nda ntkne w of

thi s duty , a nd heIt is not poss ible to analy ze Davis’s claim that he could not work be causehe wa s sick, as 2 his me dical rec ords are not in the rec ord on appe al. See Fe d. R. App. P. 10(b)(2) ( “I f the a ppellant intends to urg e on appeal that a findingor conc lusion is uns upported by the evidenc e or is contrary to the evidenc e, the a

ppellant must include in the record a transcript of all evidence releva nt to that findingor c on c lus ion .” ). Ho wever, it i s not ne c e ssa ry to do s o b e c a

us etherewa s o ther evidenc ein the re cord suppor

ting the district c ourt’s ruling . 3 v o lu n ta r ily a n d in te n tio n a lly v io la te d th a t d u ty . Un i te d S ta te s v . Wi l l i a ms , 121 F . 3d 615, 621 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . “ [ P ] r oba t i one r ' s f a i l ur e t o m a ke s uf

f i c i e ntbona f i de e f f or t s t o s e e k e m pl oy m e ntorborr ow m one y i n or de rt o pa y the f i ne or r e s titu tio n m a y r e f

le c t a n in s u f

f ic ie n t c o n c e rn f

o rp a y in g th e d e b t h e o w e s to s o c ie ty f o rh is c r im e ,” a n d in s u c h as itu a tio n , “th e S ta te is lik e w is e ju s tif ie d in r e voki ng pr oba t i on a nd us i ng i m pr i s onm e nta s a n appr opr i a t e pe na l ty f orthe offe nse. ” B earden , 103 S . C t . a t2070. E ve n though the r e c or d on thi s appe a l doe s notc ont a i n the m e di c a l r e c or ds th a t D a v is p r e s e n te d to h is p r o b a tio n o f f ic e ra n d to th e d is tr ic t c o u r t r e g a r d in g h is heal th con di t i on , i tcont ai ns suff i ci entevi dence t o con cl ud e D avi s’ s f ai l ure t o p ay th e r e s titu tio n w a s w illf u l. F ir s t, th e r e c o r d r e v e a ls D a v is h a d $ 1 ,0 0 0 .0 0 in h is 2 P rude nt i a l S e c ur i t i e s a c c ounta tthe t i m e he w a s s e nt e nc e d t o f i ve y e a r s of pr oba t i on. T he di s tr i c tc our ti nt e nde d thi s m one y be pa i d on orbe f or e J une 1, 20 04 , as the fi rs tpaym entt ow ar ds re st i tut i on . H ow ever , D avi s f ai l ed t o m ake any p a y m e n ts f

r o m th a t o ra n y o th e ra c c o u n t. S e c o n d , e v e n th o u g h D a v is h a d a n ab ility t o e a rn s i gni f

i c a nti nc om e ( hi s e a rni ng w e r e $50, 000 dur i ng 2001- 2002) , he m a de4

n o e f f o r t to f in d ajo b w h e n h e w a s o n p r o b a tio n d u r in g af iv e - m o n th p e r io d . T h ir d , w h ile D a v is w a s o n p r o b a tio n , h e to ld h is p r o b a tio n o f f ic e rh e w a s u n ab le to b o rr o w m o n e y f

r o m a n y o n e to p a y to w a r d s th e r e s titu tio n . H o w e v e r , w h e n D a v is w a s f a c in g r e v o c a tio n o f

h is p r o b a tio n , h e r e p r e s e n te d to th e c o u r t th a t h e c o u ld borr ow m one y w hi c h he c oul d pa y t ow a r ds r e s t i tut i on w i thi n tw o w e e ks . T hus , the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s f

i ndi ng tha tD a vi s ’ s f

a i l ur e t o pa y r e s t i tut i on w a s w i l l f ul i s not e rr o n e o u s . G iv e n th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th is c a s e , n a m e ly , D a v is ’s n e g le c t to p a y c h ild s uppor tw hi c h ha d gr ow n t o $42, 760. 00 ove r15 y e a r s a nd hi s f a i l ur e t o pa y a ny m one y t ow a r ds c our t - or de r e d r e s t i tut i on de s pi t e hi s appa r e ntabi l i tyt o w ork or b o rr o w , th e d istrict co u rt d idn o t ab u se it s d iscr etio n b y r ev o k in g D av is’s pr oba t i on. AF F I R ME D.