28 C.F.R. § 2.7(a); Santiago v. U.S., 889 F.2d 371, 373 (1st Cir.1989). The Parole Commission set a “presumptive release date” for Ellis of October 21, 1989. It subsequently revoked that date, however, because Ellis did not pay the fine. Instead, Ellis asked a federal magistrate to determine that he could not pay the fine because he had no “property [other than exempt property] exceeding $20 in value,” in which case, according to statute, the government must release him. See 18 U.S.C. § 3569 (full text in Appendix). The magistrate, and subsequently the district court, denied Ellis’s request. Ellis now appeals. Ellis argues that the Constitution forbids holding a person in prison solely because he is indigent. See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (<HOLDING>); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28
holding that it is sufficient grounds to revoke a probation if only one condition of the probation is broken holding that probation cannot be revoked solely for violation of conditions requiring payment without evidence that probationer is able to pay holding in a case where the maximum time of imprisonment was extended because an indigent defendant was unable to pay a fine and court costs that a state may not constitutionally imprison beyond the maximum duration fixed by statute a defendant who is financially unable to pay a fine holding that state may not revoke probation for nonpayment of fine where probationer is unable to pay through no fault of his own holding states allegation of failure to report to probation officer was sufficient to revoke despite any showing of deficiency in the other two violations alleged in the motion to revoke