United States v. Juanico

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS August 4, 2016
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 15-2229
(D. N.M.)
BRIAN J. JUANICO, (D.C. No. 1:14-CR-03095-JB-1)
Defendant - Appellant.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, EBEL, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.
Brian Juanico pleaded guilty to three counts of assault of an intimate
partner by strangling or suffocation, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(8) and
1153. The charges arose out of a 2014 incident in which Juanico attacked the
mother of his three children. At sentencing, the district court imposed a prison
sentence of eighteen months, followed by three years of supervised release, and a
fine of $53,423.55. Juanico appeals only the fine. Exercising jurisdiction under
28 U.S.C. § 1291, we AFFIRM the district court’s imposition of the fine.
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata and collateral estoppel. It may be cited,
however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th
Cir. R. 32.1.
I. Background
The victim, a member of the Acoma Pueblo Tribe, reported to the Acoma
Tribal Police Department that Juanico had assaulted her on the reservation. She
stated that after she had returned from Denver to pick up Juanico and one of her
daughters at Juanico’s home on the reservation, Juanico had become upset with
her. She reported that Juanico had then choked her three times, making it
difficult to breathe each time. Juanico also threatened to hit her with a golf club
and shoot her with a gun.
The tribal court issued a warrant for Juanico’s arrest, and Juanico turned
himself in. An agent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of Justice Services
interviewed the victim about the incident, and then filed a complaint in federal
district court in New Mexico charging Juanico with assault by strangulation.
Juanico pleaded guilty to all charges without a plea agreement. The
probation office calculated Juanico’s Sentencing Guidelines range to be thirty-
three to forty-one months. The office also collected financial information from
Juanico to determine his fine range. His most recent job, obtained while on
release before trial, paid a gross monthly income of $3986.67, resulting in about
$3000 a month in take-home pay. Juanico’s mobile home was worth about
$130,000 with a mortgage of $56,931. After adding in a 401(k), pickup trucks,
tools, and various personal loans and collections against him, Juanico’s total
liabilities were $95,453 and his net worth was $95,347. The fine range under the
-2-
Sentencing Guidelines was thus $7500 to $75,000. The probation office
recommended, however, that the court not impose a fine in light of Juanico’s
financial situation and his multiple dependents.
At sentencing, although Juanico argued for a sentence of time-served (104
days), the district court imposed a sentence of eighteen months, to be followed by
three years of supervised release. The court varied downward from the
Guidelines range because of several factors, including, among others, Juanico’s
family’s support, his employment, and his admission that he had made a terrible
mistake. In addition, the court stated that the imposition of a fine would
substitute for some prison time.
Juanico’s counsel objected to the imposition of any fine, arguing that his
financial obligations would prevent him from being able to make any payments.
The court nonetheless stated it would impose a fine of $53,423.55 to cover the
costs of Juanico’s incarceration for eighteen months and supervised release for
three years. In response to counsel’s objections, the court proposed a payment
plan involving thirty-six monthly payments of $1484 to begin upon the end of
Juanico’s incarceration. Counsel again objected, claiming Juanico’s duty to pay
child support might make these payments impossible. The court overruled the
objections and imposed the sentence.
-3-
II. Analysis
Juanico argues that the district court committed procedural error in
imposing the fine. Specifically, he argues that the court did not consider the
burden the fine would impose and its possible impact on his dependents.
We review the imposition of sentences for reasonableness under an abuse
of discretion standard. See United States v. Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d 1136,
1144–45 (10th Cir. 2011). We review a factual finding that a defendant is able to
pay a fine for clear error. See United States v. Trujillo, 136 F.3d 1388, 1398
(10th Cir. 1998). We presume that a fine within the Guidelines range is
reasonable. See Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d at 1147.
The Guidelines advise that a court should impose a fine unless a defendant
establishes that he is unable to pay. The defendant bears the burden of making
such a showing. See id. at 1145.
When imposing a fine, the district court must consider several factors laid
out in both the U.S. Code and the Sentencing Guidelines. See 18 U.S.C.
§§ 3553(a), 3572(a); USSG § 5E1.2(d); see also Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d at 1145.
“Although the ‘district court is not required to make factual findings specific to
each factor . . .,’ we have indicated that ‘the record must reflect the court’s
consideration of the pertinent factors and the basis for the imposition of a fine.’”
Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d at 1145–46 (quoting United States v. Vigil, 644 F.3d
1114, 1124 (10th Cir. 2011)).
-4-
Having reviewed the district court’s thorough order, we find that it
adequately addressed the requisite factors, and that the presumption of
reasonableness accorded fines within the Guidelines range is not rebutted here.
First, Juanico does not argue that the fine falls outside the appropriate Guidelines
range. His primary contention is that the district court failed to properly analyze
the burden the fine would place on Juanico and his dependents. But the district
court explicitly laid out the factors it needed to consider, and stated that it was
imposing the fine “[a]fter considering the fourteen applicable factors.” R. at 118.
The court stated it was “acutely aware of Juanico’s family obligations,” but found
that a fine was the proper punishment in this instance. Id. at 119. The district
court also found that material possessions matter to Juanico, and the loss of them
would deter further criminal conduct. Finally, by allowing the fine to be paid in
installments over three years, the court somewhat lessened the hardship. Contrary
to Juanico’s argument, the district court did consider the burden the fine might
place on Juanico and his dependents.
The court then found that Juanico had not proven by a preponderance of the
evidence that he will be unable to pay the fine. 1 Reviewing for clear error, we
1
Juanico argues that the district court erred by stating, “While the
difficulty a fine will cause is certainly relevant when [a defendant] is arguing that
the Court should not impose a fine, it is not relevant once the Court decides to
impose a fine. At that stage, difficulty to the defendant is not the issue; the sole
issue is whether he can pay the fine.” Dist. Ct. Order 49. If considered by itself,
that sentence would be error. See 18 U.S.C. 3572(a) (requiring a court to
(continued...)
-5-
affirm this finding. The district court found that Juanico could sell his mobile
home, or take loans using his assets as collateral, although perhaps a difficult
option, the fact remains that he would be able to finance payments on the fine.
Having already considered the burden placed on Juanico by the fine, as well as
the other required factors, the district court did not clearly err in concluding
Juanico would be able to pay the fine after his release from incarceration.
We also note that this case bears a striking similarity to a recently
published decision of this court that affirmed the imposition of a fine by the same
judge in the District of New Mexico under similar circumstances. See United
States v. Basurto, No. 15-2119, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. 2016). In that case, the
district court found the defendant could afford to pay a fine by selling her house.
Despite the procedural hurdles and monetary burdens of doing so, we affirmed the
imposition of the fine. See id. at ___. We also affirmed the district court’s
decision to not consider hardship in its ability-to-pay analysis. Basurto supports
affirming the district court’s imposition of a fine in this case. Having said that,
although a district court need not go through every factor in explicit detail, a
1
(...continued)
consider the burden on the defendant when determining both whether to impose a
fine and the amount of the fine); USSG § 5E1.2(d), (e) (same). However, the
remainder of the district court’s careful and extensive order reveals that the court
did thoroughly consider the burden that a fine of this amount would impose on
Juanico and his dependents.
-6-
more precise and holistic explanation of the § 3572(a)(2) factors lessens the risk
of appeal and facilitates our appellate review.
Juanico’s final argument concerns the amount of the fine. Because he did
not challenge the amount in the district court, he concedes we review for plain
error. The familiar plain error test requires reversal if the district court commits
“(1) error, (2) that is plain, (3) which affects substantial rights, and (4) which
seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial
proceedings.” United States v. Romero, 491 F.3d 1173, 1178 (10th Cir. 2007).
Juanico argues that the district court failed to consider the possibility that he
would be released from prison earlier than eighteen months due to good-time
credits. In addition, he argues that the district court should have considered that
the Bureau of Prisons might decide to place him in a less costly community
corrections center for the final few months before his release. 2 Even assuming,
however, that the district court erred when it failed to consider these two
possibilities, we find such an error could not have been “plain,” as required for
reversal. Juanico points to no cases, and we find none, that require a district
court to make these types of considerations. And for good reason: Juanico,
contrary to his assertions on appeal, was not “entitled” to good time credit, nor
was he “virtually certain” to receive such credit. Aplt. Br. at 31. Without the
2
In his reply brief, Juanico notes that he was, in fact, released three
months early due to good-time credits. The district court could not have known
this at the time of sentencing, of course.
-7-
benefit of foresight, neither the district court nor Juanico could have predicted
whether his behavior in prison would conform to the rules. The district court did
not plainly err when it imposed a fine based on the cost of Juanico’s
imprisonment.
III. Conclusion
We AFFIRM the district court’s imposition of the fine.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Timothy M. Tymkovich
Chief Judge
-8-