Professional Documents
Culture Documents
3d 901
Luther R. Bartrug appeals from the district court's order revoking his probation
and supervised release and imposing an additional term of imprisonment. We
affirm.
Approximately ten months after Bartrug's release from prison, where he was
serving a sentence for tax evasion, his probation officer filed a petition to
revoke Bartrug's probation and supervised release. The probation officer
alleged that after his release from prison, Bartrug failed to make restitution and
the other scheduled payments as directed by his probation officer and failed to
After a hearing on the probation officer's motion, the district court found by a
preponderance of the evidence that Bartrug violated the conditions of his
probation by refusing to file income tax returns, refusing to arrange for payment
of the fine and restitution imposed by the court, and continuing to defy
collection efforts by the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). The court revoked
Bartrug's probation and supervised release and sentenced him to additional
concurrent terms of imprisonment totalling one year. The court specifically did
not impose an additional term of supervision. Bartrug's prison sentence expired
in October 1994.
Having found that Bartrug violated the terms of his probation and supervised
release by failing to make the required payments and failing to cooperate with
the IRS, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to revoke
Bartrug's term of probation and supervised release. See United States v.
Stephenson, 928 F.2d 728, 731 (6th Cir.1991); United States v. Taylor, 321
F.2d 339, 341 (4th Cir.1963). Moreover, the court's revocation decision was not
unduly harsh, particularly in light of the absence of persuasive evidence that
Bartrug would not continue to violate the conditions of his release.
We therefore affirm the order of the district court revoking Bartrug's term of
supervision and imposing a one-year sentence. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED