MEMORANDUM **

Appellant Michelle Kay. Jarrett appeals her termination from the Central District *431 of California’s Conviction and Sentence Alternatives (“CASA”) post-plea diversion program. Jarrett alleges she was denied due process and equal protection rights because her termination from CASA was the result of non-compliance primarily caused by her impoverished status. 1

In Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court held that “there can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.” 461 U.S. 660, 664, 108 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221 (1983) (quoting Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 591, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (plurality opinion)). The inability to pay a fine or restitution, despite “all reasonable efforts to pay” and “through no fault of his own,” cannot result in automatic incarceration without the consideration of alternative methods of punishment. Id. at 668-69, 103 S.Ct. 2064.

The record establishes that Jarrett was not terminated from CASA because of in-digency. The court tried numerous alternative sanctions designed to direct Jarrett back into compliance prior to terminating her. Jarrett was terminated because of her pattern of consistent, willful non-compliance. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion in terminating Jarrett from the CASA program.

AFFIRMED.