Opinion ID: 62390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Willful Failure to Pay Restitution

Text: The district court’s decision regarding revocation of supervised release is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Frazier, 26 F.3d 110, 112 (11th 2 Cir. 1994). The district court can revoke a term of supervised release if it “finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant violated a condition of supervised release . . . .” 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3). The district court’s findings of fact with regard to violations of supervised release are binding unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 318 (11th Cir. 1993). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3613A, Upon a finding that the defendant is in default on a payment of a fine or restitution, the court may, pursuant to section 3565, revoke probation or a term of supervised release, . . . resentence a defendant pursuant to section 3614, . . . or take any other action necessary to obtain compliance with the order of a fine or restitution. In determining what action to take, the court shall consider the defendant’s employment status, earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness in failing to comply with the fine or restitution order, and any other circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant’s ability or failure to comply with the order of a fine or restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3613A(a)(1), (2) (subsections omitted). In revocation proceedings for failure to pay restitution, the court must find the defendant’s failure to pay was willful, i.e., the defendant had the means or ability to pay a fine or restitution as ordered and purposefully did not do so. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 668, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 2070, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983). The government may establish willful failure to pay by producing evidence the defendant had funds available to pay restitution and did not do so. 3 See United States v. Boswell, 605 F.2d 171, 175 (5th Cir. 1979). “[A defendant’s] failure to make sufficient bona fide efforts to seek employment or borrow money in order to pay the fine or restitution may reflect an insufficient concern for paying the debt he owes to society for his crime,” and in such a situation, “the State is likewise justified in revoking probation and using imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for the offense.” Bearden, 461 U.S. at 668, 103 S.Ct. at 2070. We determined, in United States v. Satterfield, 743 F.2d 827, 842 (11th Cir. 1984), that, under Bearden, a district court must consider two threshold criteria in revocation hearings. The court must first consider whether the defendant has made sufficient efforts to pay. Id. If a defendant has made sufficient efforts and still cannot comply with the terms of his probation, the district court must determine whether imprisonment or an alternative is an appropriate punishment. Id. As an initial matter, although the district court did not explicitly find that Reid’s behavior was willful, it did find that he “ignored his obligations” and had been unwilling to follow the court’s instructions. Thus, the district court implicitly found that Reid’s conduct was willful. See Bearden, 461 U.S. at 668, 103 S.Ct. at 2070. In determining that Reid’s supervised release should be revoked, the district court considered Reid’s employment, his access to other financial resources and assets that could be sold, and his failure to make any effort to satisfy his restitution 4 obligation after the first revocation hearing. Therefore, the record indicates that the district court properly considered the § 3613A factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3613A. The record also shows that Reid admitted that he did not make restitution payments as ordered. Although he asserted that he was unable to make restitution payments because of other expenses related to the maintenance of his home and his car, the record indicates that Reid did not contact his probation officer to discuss his financial difficulties and request a different payment schedule. Reid could have petitioned the court for a modification of his restitution payment schedule pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3664(k). The record further indicates that Reid submitted false monthly reports to the probation office, which indicated that he had been making restitution payments and that he did not have any expenses over $500. In light of the foregoing, the district court did not clearly err in implicitly finding that Reid did not make sufficient efforts to pay and willfully failed to pay restitution. Accordingly, it did not abuse its discretion in revoking his supervised release. See Boswell, 605 F.2d at 175.