(dissenting):
This appeal is not about what we should do for the victim who was bilked out of $60,000, but what we should do about the thief who plea bargained a maximum 60 year sentence and $60,000 fine into a 6 months’ sentence plus probation on his promise to make restitution, and now reneges.
The simple fact is that Landay has not complied with the special provision of his probation that he execute “whatever documents may be necessary” to transfer funds to make restitution, but on the contrary has refused to do so. As a consequence, the victim must file suit in Maryland to obtain judgment against the thief because he refuses to execute a limited power of attorney for the release of the funds from his father’s estate. This is not acting in good faith, keeping the faith, or keeping the bargain. This is bad faith and conduct entirely inconsistent with a bona fide effort to accomplish rehabilitation. See Hensley v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 257 F.2d 681; United States v. Steiner, 7 Cir. 1957, 239 F.2d 660.
I do not share the majority’s philosophical objections to requiring a thief to make restitution to his victim as a condition of probation, a condition which is, in any event, statutorily authorized. 18 U.S.C.A. § 3651. In my view the Government should be applauded rather than rebuked for having attempted to make the thief live up to his plea bargain, and the district court should be affirmed for having exercised its sound discretion in revoking Landay’s probation. I dissent from Part II.1
. I concur in Part I of the majority opinion.