Case ID: f-appx_432/html/0307-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Abraham AVETISYAN, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 10-30602
    Summary Calendar.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    July 7, 2011.
    Camille Ann Domingue, Kelly P. Uebinger, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
    Mark David Plaisance, Esq., Baker, LA, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Abraham Avetisyan appeals the district court’s imposition of a fine of $10,000, following his plea of guilty to access device fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(3). We affirm.

According to Avetisyan, because the presentence report (PSR) showed he was incarcerated, lacked assets, and had no ability to pay an immediate fine, the Government was required to come forward with evidence of his ability to pay, and the district court was required to make findings regarding his ability to pay. As Avetisyan concedes, because he did not object to the imposition of the fine, we review only for plain error. See United States v. Brantley, 537 F.3d 347, 349 (5th Cir.2008).

The PSR made no determination that Avetisyan lacked a future ability to pay a fine, and it set forth evidence of Avetisyan’s past gainful employment and earnings. In addition, the district court ordered the fine to be paid in future installments of 25% of Avetisyan’s gross income to begin 30 days following Avetisyan’s release from prison. Under these circumstances, there was no error, and certainly no plain error. See Brantley, 537 F.3d at 352-53 and n. 1; United States v. Landerman, 167 F.3d 895, 900 (5th Cir.1999).

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 
      
       Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.