UNITED STATES v. SIKUTWA (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

Lawrence Sikutwa appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the revocation of supervised release following a contested evidentiary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see United States v. Verduzco, 330 F.3d 1182, 1184 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.

Sikutwa contends that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his violation was willful and, therefore, the district court erred by revoking his supervised release. Contrary to Sikutwa’s contention, Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983), did not require the district court to find that Sikutwa’s violation was willful. In that case, the Court addressed the circumstances under which the trial court may imprison a defendant for failure to pay. See id. at 672, 103 S.Ct. 2064 (court may not impose sentence of imprisonment for failure to pay unless failure was willful or, in the case of bona fide efforts to pay, where the court determines that alternatives to imprisonment are insufficient). Bearden is inapposite here because the district court did not impose a term of imprisonment; it instead opted to impose a new supervised release term, with a 60-day period of home confinement. In any event, the evidence here was sufficient to show willfulness, notwithstanding the fact that Sikutwa paid more than was required on some occasions. See United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1045-46 (9th Cir. 2007).

AFFIRMED.