Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07019/USCOURTS-ca10-92-07019-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rafael Ricardo Pena
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

\,-::; l I ¥, n ..f' . ..... Cii -~ ... 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

Urtfr:::,' •1 -·_:. , ,_ .·t of ,-\1 .. ,,_.J~ 

SEP! 5 1992 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v. 

RAFAEL RICARDO PENA, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Clerk . 

No. 92-7019 

(D.C. No. CR-91-27-S) 

( E . D. Okla. ) 

Before MOORE, TACHA, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Defendant-Appellant Rafael Ricardo Pena entered guilty pleas 

to two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (a)(3) & 2 based on 

his involvement in a conspiracy to distribute cocaine. This 

appeal is from an order of the district court sentencing Pena to 

the statutory minimum sentence of sixty months incarceration on 

Count One and thirty-seven months on Count Two; three years 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the 

case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-7019 Document: 010110322277 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 1
supervised release on Count One and one year on Count Two; and 

imposing a fifteen thousand dollar fine and a special assessment 

of fifty dollars for each count. Pena appeals his sentence, 

arguing that the district court erred in deciding not to depart 

downward from the guidelines and in imposing a fine. We dismiss 

the first claim for lack of jurisdiction under 18 u.s.c. § 

3742(a). We exercise jurisdiction over the second claim under 28 

u.s.c. § 1291 and affirm. 

Pena requested a downward departure from the sentencing guidelines based on the fact that a coconspirator who cooperated with 

the government received a downward departure when he was sentenced 

in Tennessee. Pena contends that the disparity between these two 

sentences violates the uniformity and proportionality policies of 

the guidelines, and constitutes the type of aggravating or 

mitigating circumstances that allow the district court to depart 

from the guidelines under 18 u.s.c. § 3553(b). 

This court does not have appellate jurisdiction to review the 

district court's discretionary refusal to depart downward. United 

States v. Soto, 918 F.2d 882 (10th Cir. 1990). It is clear that 

the district judge was aware that, in appropriate cases, he had 

the discretion to depart downward. He explicitly declined to exercise that discretion, and we do not have jurisdiction to review 

that decision. 

Pena also contends that the district court erred in imposing 

a fine, claiming an inability to pay. We review findings of fact 

pertaining to a defendant's ability to pay a fine under the 

clearly erroneous standard. United States v. Washington-Williams, 

-2-

Appellate Case: 92-7019 Document: 010110322277 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 2
945 F.2d 325, 326 (10th Cir. 1991). The record shows that the 

district court considered the presentence report's assessment of 

the defendant's ability to pay before imposing the minimum fine 

consistent with the guidelines. Given the record, the district 

court's finding was not clearly erroneous. 

Accordingly, we DISMISS Pena's appeal based on 18 u.s.c. § 

3553(b) for lack of jurisdiction, and AFFIRM the order of the 

district court. The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

-3-

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Deanell Reece Tacha 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 92-7019 Document: 010110322277 Date Filed: 09/15/1992 Page: 3