United States v. Cifuentes Riascos ( 1996 )


Menu:
  • USCA1 Opinion











    October 10, 1996 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
    ____________________


    No. 96-1035

    UNITED STATES,

    Appellee,

    v.

    HENRY CIFUENTES-RIASCOS,

    Defendant, Appellant.

    ____________________


    APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

    FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

    [Hon. Carmen Consuelo Cerezo, U.S. District Judge] ___________________

    ____________________

    Before

    Torruella, Chief Judge, ___________
    Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges. ______________

    ____________________

    Benico Sanchez Rivera, Federal Public Defender, and Miguel A.A. ______________________ ____________
    Nogueras-Castro, Assistant Federal Public Defender, on brief for _______________
    appellant.
    Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney, Warren Vazquez and Nelson _____________ ______________ ______
    Perez-Sosa, Assistant United States Attorneys, and Jose A. Quiles __________ _______________
    Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, on brief for appellee. ________


    ____________________


    ____________________















    Per Curiam. Defendant was convicted of unlawful __________

    re-entry by a deported alien in violation of 8 U.S.C.

    1326(b)(2). He was sentenced to 100 months imprisonment and

    fined $500. On appeal he argues for the first time that the

    district court erred in imposing the fine where the defendant

    was financially unable to pay. This objection not having

    been made below, it is reviewed for plain error only. See ___

    United States v. Peppe, 80 F.3d 19, 22 (1st Cir. 1996). ______________ _____

    After careful review of the parties' briefs and the record,

    we find no error.

    The sentencing guidelines provide that a fine must

    be imposed within a specified range unless a defendant is

    unable to pay. See U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(a)(b). When a ___

    sentencing court finds a defendant unable to pay the fine

    established by the guidelines, "the court may impose a lesser

    fine or waive the fine." U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(f). Here, the

    district court expressly found that, based on the defendant's

    financial condition, "the imposition of a fine within the

    required range is not viable," and, instead of imposing a

    fine within the applicable range of $10,000 to $100,000,

    fined the defendant $500. The court was authorized by the

    guidelines to do so. See U.S.S.G. 5E1.2(f). There was no ___

    plain error. Cf. United States v. Rivera, 68 F.3d 5, 8 (1st ___ _____________ ______

    Cir. 1995) (no plain error in imposing fine well below





    -2-













    guideline minimum where defendant lacked apparent source of

    funds).

    Affirmed. See Loc. R. 27.1. ________ ___















































    -3-






Document Info

Docket Number: 96-1035

Filed Date: 10/10/1996

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 9/21/2015