Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a criminal judgment imposing a $1,000 fine and $100 special assessment due immediately while also establishing minimum payments for the defendant during incarceration and supervised release. The court held that this arrangement did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1), explaining that immediate liability and a payment schedule of minimum payments may coexist when the defendant is indigent.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1) prohibits a district court from making a criminal fine and special assessment due immediately while also establishing a payment schedule consisting of minimum payments based on the defendant's ability to pay.
Holdings
- Section 3572(d)(1) does not prohibit a district court from making a fine and special assessment due immediately while also allowing an indigent defendant to discharge the obligation through a payment schedule of minimum payments.
Key quotations
“the district court did not violate the statute by making the monetary penalty due immediately, but allowing Patrick to discharge the penalty through a payment plan.” (Opinion at 17)
Factual background
Patrick pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 151 months in prison and three years of supervised release, imposed a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment due immediately, and recognized his indigency by establishing minimum payments through the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program and during supervised release. Patrick challenged only the simultaneous use of an immediate-due designation and a payment schedule, not the imposition or amount of the monetary penalties.
Procedural history
Patrick pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Idaho to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court sentenced him to 151 months' imprisonment and three years of supervised release, imposed a $1,000 fine and $100 special assessment due immediately, and established minimum payments through the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program and during supervised release. Patrick timely appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.