[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 09-15220 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 28, 2010
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 07-00157-CR-CAP-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
RICHARD T. ROBERTS,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(May 28, 2010)
Before BLACK, HULL and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Roberts appeals the district court’s revocation of his probation.
Roberts raises two issues on appeal, which we address in turn.
I.
Roberts first asserts the district court erred by finding that he violated the
conditions of his probation. A violation of a condition of probation must be
proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Johnson v. United States, 120 S. Ct.
1795, 1800 (2000). We generally review a district court’s revocation of probation
for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Mitsven, 452 F.3d 1264, 1266 (11th
Cir. 2006).
In revocation proceedings for failure to pay restitution, the court must find
that the defendant’s failure to pay was willful. See Bearden v. Georgia, 103 S. Ct.
2064, 2070 (1983). A defendant’s “failure to make sufficient bona fide efforts to
seek employment . . . may reflect an insufficient concern for paying the debt he
owes to society for his crime. In such a situation, the State is likewise justified in
revoking probation and using imprisonment as an appropriate penalty for the
offense.” Id.
The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding by a preponderance
of the evidence that Roberts violated his probation. The Government presented
sufficient evidence for the court to determine that Roberts failed to report and meet
2
with his probation supervisor, failed to file two monthly reports, and did not
provide proper documentation of his job search efforts. In light of Roberts’
insufficient efforts to obtain employment, the Government also presented sufficient
evidence for the court to determine that Roberts violated his probation by willfully
failing to make his monthly restitution payments.
II.
Roberts next contends the district court erred by providing inadequate
findings of fact and reasoning to support its decision to revoke Roberts’ probation.
The district court must provide “a written statement . . . as to the evidence relied on
and reasons for revoking parole.” See United States v. Copeland, 20 F.3d 412, 414
(11th Cir. 1994) (quotation omitted). A district court may satisfy this requirement
with an oral statement that is recorded and transcribed “when those findings create
a record sufficiently complete to advise the parties and the reviewing court of the
reasons for the revocation of supervised release and the evidence the decision
maker relied upon.” Id.
Although the district court’s reasoning was brief, it adequately set forth the
reasons for revoking Roberts’ probation. The Government presented extensive
testimony to show that, among other violations, Roberts had violated his probation
by failing to verify his job search efforts and otherwise failing to report as directed
3
and required. The district court stated that Roberts would not “report as directed
and [would not] work” and determined that Roberts had violated the terms of his
probation. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4