IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20260

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

SERGIO BAHENA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CR-574-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Sergio Bahena pleaded guilty to conspiring to make, utter, and possess 

a counterfeit security in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371 and 513(a). The district 

court sentenced Bahena to 15 months of imprisonment and three years of 

supervised release. The district court also ordered Bahena to pay restitution 

in the amount of $62,444.93. Bahena was ordered to make monthly restitution 

payments of $100 beginning in May 2016.

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 30, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20260 Document: 00515180920 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/30/2019
No. 19-20260

2

In April 2019, the district court revoked Bahena’s supervised release and 

sentenced him to 12 months of imprisonment and an additional 12 months of 

supervised release. Bahena argues that the district court abused its discretion 

by revoking his supervised release based on his failure to comply with his 

restitution obligations.

We review a decision to revoke supervised release for an abuse of 

discretion. United States v. Spraglin, 418 F.3d 479, 480 (5th Cir. 2005).

Applying this standard, we will not substitute our judgment for that of the 

district court. United States v. Fortenberry, 919 F.2d 923, 925 (5th Cir. 1990).

The Supreme Court has articulated constitutional parameters for courtordered confinement resulting from a failure to pay fines and restitution—

parameters meant to avoid imprisoning defendants “solely by reason of their 

indigency.” Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 242 (1970); see Bearden v. 

Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 661-62 (1983); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 398 (1971). 

The Supreme Court has “distinguished this substantive limitation on the 

imprisonment of indigents from the situation where a defendant was at fault 

in failing to pay the fine.” Bearden, 461 U.S. at 668. “If the defendant is found 

to have willfully refused to pay . . . restitution when he had the means to do so, 

or to have failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to obtain employment or 

borrow money with which to pay . . . restitution, the government is justified in 

using imprisonment as a sanction to enforce collection.” United States v. 

Payan, 992 F.2d 1387, 1396 (5th Cir. 1993).

There is no dispute that Bahena violated the conditions of his supervised 

release by failing to pay $100 per month in restitution as ordered. While 

Bahena made some payments toward restitution and maintained that the 

missed payments were caused by a lack of funds, the record shows that he was 

able to obtain a significantly larger amount of cash in order to make bond in a 

 Case: 19-20260 Document: 00515180920 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/30/2019
No. 19-20260

3

state criminal proceeding. The district court was aware of the requirement 

that the failure to pay be willful, and its implicit conclusion that Bahena

willfully refused to satisfy his restitution obligations is not clearly erroneous 

in light of the record as a whole. Thus, the decision to revoke Bahena’s 

supervision was not an abuse of discretion. See id.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 19-20260 Document: 00515180920 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/30/2019