Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0783-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Garudadas Wawero MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.
    No. 13-10518.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 21, 2014.
    William Ramsey Reed, Assistant U.S., Gregory William Addington, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Elizabeth Olson White, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Reno, NV, for Plaintiff-Appel-lee.
    Ramon Acosta, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Reno, NV, for Defendant-Appellant.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Garudadas Wawero Marshall appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the fine imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Marshall contends that the district court erred by finding that he had the ability to pay the $1,000 fine imposed. We review for clear error the district court’s determination that a defendant is able to pay a fine. See United States v. Orlando, 553 F.3d 1235, 1240 (9th Cir.2009). Even accepting that Marshall was indigent at the time of sentencing, he failed to demonstrate his inability to pay because he presented no evidence that he would be unable to participate in an earnings program while incarcerated or otherwise pay the fine in the future. Therefore, the district court did not err by imposing the below-Guidelines fine. See id. (“[T]he court may fine a currently indigent defendant, if it finds that he has earning capacity to pay the fine in the future”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.