United States v. Melvin , 288 F. App'x 117 ( 2008 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-4108
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD CUTTINO MELVIN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:02-cr-00201-NCT)
Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: August 5, 2008
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scott L. Wilkinson, SCOTT L. WILKINSON & ASSOCIATES, PC, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States
Attorney, Lisa B. Boggs, Assistant United States Attorney,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Cuttino Melvin pleaded guilty, pursuant to a
plea agreement, to one count of possession of a firearm after
having been convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year
of imprisonment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2)
(2000). The district court sentenced him to fifty-seven months of
imprisonment, three years of supervised release, a $25,000 fine,
and a $100 special assessment. In Melvin’s first appeal, we
affirmed his conviction but vacated his sentence and remanded for
resentencing in accordance with United States v. Booker, 543 U.S.
220 (2005). United States v. Melvin, 142 F. App’x 732 (4th Cir.
2005) (No. 04-4372).
On remand, the district court departed upward and
sentenced Melvin to sixty-one months of imprisonment, three years
of supervised release, a $25,000 fine, and a $100 special
assessment. On appeal, Melvin argues that the court erred in
imposing the fine because the presentence report lacked any current
information regarding his financial situation, and the district
court failed to make adequate findings with respect to the factors
in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a) (2000). The Government argues that the fine
should be affirmed.
We review “de novo the adequacy of factual findings to
support a fine and accept the district court’s findings unless they
are clearly erroneous.” United States v. Linney, 134 F.3d 274, 281
- 2 -
(4th Cir. 1998). The Guidelines provide that a district court
“shall impose a fine in all cases, except where the defendant
establishes that he is unable to pay and is not likely to become
able to pay any fine.” U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual (“USSG”)
§ 5E1.2(a) (2001). A district court must consider several factors
in determining whether to impose a fine, including (among other
factors) a defendant’s earning capacity and financial resources,
the burden that the fine would place on a defendant or his
dependents, and the anticipated costs of incarceration and
supervised release. 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a); USSG § 5E1.2(d). “‘A
district court may satisfy these requirements if it adopts a
defendant’s [PSR] that contains adequate factual findings to allow
effective appellate review.’” United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d
655, 665 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Castner, 50 F.3d
1267, 1277 (4th Cir. 1995)). “Otherwise, the district court must
set forth specifically its findings of fact on the factors set
forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3572(a).” Id.Our review of the record leads us to conclude that the
district court’s findings were accurate and adequate to support the
imposition of the fine. Accordingly, we affirm Melvin’s 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
- 3 -