United States v. Sanchez-Urias

United States v. Sanchez-Urias, 887 F.3d 1069 (10th Cir. 2018) · United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · April 17, 2018 · No. No. 17-1166

Summary

In *United States v. Sanchez-Urias*, the Tenth Circuit affirmed a $1,000 fine imposed on a defendant convicted of illegal reentry, holding that the defendant bears the burden under USSG § 5E1.2(a) to establish inability to pay. The district court did not clearly err in finding the defendant failed to meet that burden, particularly where he refused to provide financial information during the presentence interview and the record contained evidence of income and assets. The court emphasized that a defendant cannot frustrate the sentencing court's ability to assess financial condition and then claim inability to pay.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Writing for the Court
HARTZ; SEYMOUR; PHILLIPS
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
April 17, 2018
Docket number
No. 17-1166
Procedural posture
Appeal from imposition of a $1,000 fine as part of sentence after guilty plea to illegal reentry.
Standard of review
We review a sentencing court’s decision to impose a fine for 'reasonableness under a deferential abuse-of-discretion standard.' United States v. Sharp, 749 F.3d 1267, 1291 (10th Cir. 2014). When a district court makes findings regarding a defendant’s ability to pay a fine, we will reject those findings only if they are clearly erroneous. United States v. Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d 1136, 1145 (10th Cir. 2011).
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Magdiel Sanchez-Urias v. United States of America
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal proceduresentencingstandard of reviewappellate procedureburden of proof

Practice areas

Criminal LawSentencing

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding that Defendant had not established his inability to pay a $1,000 fine.

Holdings

  1. The district court did not clearly err. The defendant bears the burden to show inability to pay under USSG §5E1.2(a). The record supported the court's finding that Defendant had not met his burden.

Key quotations

It is a defendant's burden to show that he falls within the exception. See Perez-Jiminez, 654 F.3d at 1145. (at 3)
The district court need not find that the defendant had the ability to pay; rather, it need find only that the defendant had not established his inability to pay. (at 3)
As other circuits have recognized, the absence of evidence—particularly a defendant's failure to provide financial information to the probation office—can make it hard for a defendant to carry the burden of persuasion on the issue of financial ability. (at 4)

Factual background

Defendant was arrested for illegal reentry. At his presentence interview, upon advice of counsel, he did not provide financial information. The PSR stated that his former girlfriend said he had no assets or debts, but that information was dated. The PSR also reported that before arrest he sent about $150/week to family and $100/month to his child's mother. A financial affidavit from December 2016 showed he earned $3,000/month, paid $900 rent, and had over $300 in a bank account. He was driving a car at arrest.

Procedural history

Defendant pleaded guilty to illegal reentry after deportation. The district court sentenced him to time served, one year supervised release, and imposed a $1,000 fine and mandatory assessment. Defendant objected to the fine, arguing inability to pay. The district court overruled the objection. Defendant appealed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…