Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed an order imposing a $1,000 fine and $100 special assessment due immediately while permitting payment through a minimum-payment schedule during incarceration and supervised release. The court held that this arrangement did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1), reasoning that the full obligation could be immediately due while the defendant was allowed to discharge it through good-faith installment payments in light of indigency.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1) permits a district court to make a criminal fine and special assessment due immediately while also establishing a minimum payment schedule for an indigent defendant.
- Whether the district court's order constituted an impermissible single lump-sum payment requirement under Ninth Circuit precedent.
Holdings
- Section 3572(d)(1) does not prohibit a district court from making a fine and special assessment due immediately while also allowing the defendant to discharge those obligations through minimum installment payments. Immediate payment means that the entire monetary obligation is presently due, not necessarily that the defendant must pay the entire amount in a lump sum immediately.
- The district court's order was not inconsistent with Holden because it did not require payment of the entire fine and special assessment in a single lump sum while separately setting a payment schedule.
Key quotations
“We hold that the district court did not violate 18 U.S.C. § 3572(d)(1). The district court properly made the fine and special assessment due immediately but allowed Patrick to discharge his obligations with minimal payments in recognition of his indigency.” (at 4)
“when the court entered judgment at sentencing, Patrick’s total monetary penalties were due immediately, but the court expressly permitted him to participate in the IFRP to discharge his penalties over time due to his indigency.” (at 13)
“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.” (at 17)
Factual background
Patrick pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine. The district court imposed a $1,000 fine and a $100 special assessment, made payable immediately, but recognized Patrick's indigency and directed minimum payments of at least $25 per quarter while incarcerated and 10 percent of gross income, subject to a minimum monthly payment, during supervised release. Patrick did not challenge the fine, assessment, or their amounts; he challenged only the simultaneous immediate-due designation and payment schedule.
Procedural history
Patrick was indicted in the District of Idaho for possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine and pleaded guilty. The district court sentenced him to 151 months' imprisonment followed by three years of supervised release and imposed a fine and special assessment due immediately, together with minimum payments through the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Program and during supervised release. Patrick timely appealed the monetary-payment structure, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.