FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T DECEMBER 8, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ Nos . 11 -1 08 70 & 1 1- 10 87 1 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNos . 2: 98 -cr- 00 01 1- W CO-1 2: 09 -cr- 00 04 1- W CO-SS C-1 UNITED STAT ES OF AMERIC A, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el le e, ver su s BENITO MOJI CA-LEGUIZAMO, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt- App el la nt .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal s fr om

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (Dece m be r 8, 2 01 1) Befo re EDMONDSON, CARNES an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t J ud ge s. PER CURI AM: Ben it o M oji ca-Le gu iz am o h as fil edtwo ap pe al s, an d we h av e co ns ol id at edth em . Firs t, h e ap pe al s t he di st ric t co urt’s re vo cat io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e fo r

a 1 99 8 d ru g c on vi ct io n, ar gu in g t ha t t he di st ric t co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to co ns id er o ne of t he all eg edvi ol at io ns an d t ha t t he go ve rn m en t fa il edto pro ve he wil lfu ll y co m m it te d t he ot he r two . Seco nd , he app eal s h is 70 -m on th pri so n se nt en ce an d $ 2,0 00 fin e fo r hi s co nv ic ti on of i ll eg al ly reent eri ng th e Uni te d St at es aft er h e h adbe ende po rte d. He co nt en ds th athi s p ris on sen te nc e was pr oc edur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt i m pr op erl y cal cu la te d h is cri m in al hi st ory

cat eg ory an d s ub st an ti ve ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e fac ts do no t jus ti fy anab ov e-g ui de li ne s s en te nc e. He furth er ar gu es th atth e d is tri ctco urt erred in im po si ng th e fi ne be cau se th e co urt d idno t p ro vi de a reas on edba si s fo r th e fin e’s im po si ti on . I. In19 98 Mo

jica- Leg ui zam o p le ad edgu il ty to o ne co un t o f co ns pi racy to po ss es s wi th in te ntto di st rib ut e m etha m ph et am in e. The d is tri ctco urt s en te nc ed hi m to a 78 -m on th pri so n t erm , im po se d a5-year te rm

of s up erv is edrel eas e, or de redhi m

to pay a $5 ,00 0 fi ne , andord eredth athe “be tu rn edov er t o adu lyau th or iz edimm ig rat io n o ffi ci al ” fo r rem ov al pro ceed in gs aft er co m pl et in g t he pr is on term . His s up erv is edrel eas e co nd it io ns in cl ud edth e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) MojicaLeg ui zam o was pro hi bi te d fr om co m m it ti ng “ an ot he r fed eral , st at e o r lo cal cri m e” 2whi le on supe rv is edrel eas e; (2) he was t o re po rt i n p ers on to hi s p ro ba ti on off ic er wit hi n 7 2 h ou rs of h is rel eas e fro m Bureauof P ris on cu st od y ; (3 ) he was t o p ay an y unpa idpa rt o f hi s $ 5,0 00 fin e ata rat e o f no les s t ha n $ 10 0 p er m on th ; an d (4 ) he was p ro hi bi te d fr om

reen te rin g t he Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t t he pe rm is si on of t he Uni te d S ta te s Atto rn ey

Gene ral . On J anua ry

16 , 20 04 , th e BOP re le as edMo jica- Leg ui zam o fr om

pri so n. He th enbe ga n t he supe rv is edrel eas e p eri od , whi ch was s ch edul edto expi re o n Ja nu ary 16 , 20 09 . See 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 24 (e). Onth e sa m e d ay he was re le as ed 1 fro m pri so n, i m

m ig rat io n aut ho rit ie s d ep orte d h im to Mex ic o. Mo

jica- Leg ui zam o di d n otth erea fte r co nt acthi s p ro ba ti on off ic er. Nor ha s h e m ad e p aym en ts on th e $5 ,00 0 fi ne si nc e b ei ng rel eas ed . On J ul y 26 , 20 06 , Mo

jica- Leg ui zam o’s p ro ba ti on off ic er fi le d ape ti ti on for th e rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e, an d t he di st ric t co urt i ss ue d awarran t or de rin g M oji ca-Le gu iz am o t o app ear b efo re the co urt an d a ns wer the pro ba ti on of fic er’s al le ga ti on s t ha t h e h adwil lfu ll y fai le d t o p ay

th e $ 4,4 44 rem ai ni ng The pa rties dispute when Mojica -L eguizamo was relea sed from prison. The pre sentenc e 1 investigation report states that he was re lease d in November 2003 and depor

ted on J anuar

y 16, 2004. Mojica-L eguizamo asserts that he wa s relea sed on January 16, 2004, and depor

ted that same da y . The district cour

t adopted the PSR as its findings, but beca use both sides agree that his term of super

vised rele ase c ommenced on January 16, 2004, we will assume that he was rele ased f rom prison on that date. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(e) (“ The ter m of supervised r elea se commence s on the day

the per son is relea sed fr om imprisonment . . . .”). In any event whe ther he was re lease d in November 2003 or on January

16, 2004, does not alter the analy sis. 3ba la nc e o f hi s fi ne an d h adfai le d t o re po rt t o h is pro ba ti on off ic er i n p ers on withi n 72 ho ur s o f hi s re le as e. The warran t al so ord eredhi m to sh ow caus e why his supe rv is edrel eas e sh ou ldno t b e rev ok ed . On Ma rch 12 , 20 09 —ro ug hl y two m on th s af te r th e sc he du le d e xp ira ti on of h is supe rv is edrel eas e pe rio d— Gain es vi ll e, Geo rg iapo li ce arres te d M oji ca-Le gu iz am o wh enhe at te m pt edto sel l m etha m

ph et am in e to anun de rco ve r of fic er. Bas edon th atarre st , a fed eral grandjury in di ct edMo jica- Leg ui zam o fo r il le ga ll y reen te rin g t he Uni te d St at es in vi ol at io n o f 8 U.S.C . §§ 13 26 (a), (b )(2 ). On Au gu st27 , 20 09 , Mo

jica- Leg ui zam o’s p ro ba ti onoff ic er fi le d a n am en de d s up erv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n p et it io n wi th th e d is tri ctco urt, an d o n Aug us t 3 1, 2 00 9, t he di st ric t co urt i ss ue d ane w warran t o rd eri ng MojicaLeg ui zam o t o app ear b efo re the co urt an d a ns wer h is pro ba ti onoff ic er’s al le ga ti on s. Th is ti m e th e al le ga ti on s i nc lu de d n oton ly the two all eg at io ns fro m th e in it ia l p et it io n b utals o t ha t M oji ca-Le gu iz am o h adco m m it te d c riminal co nduc t— il le ga l re en try—whi le on supe rv is edrel eas e. Mo jica- Leg ui zam o p le ad edgu il ty to the il le ga l re en try char ge in th e in di ct m en t. Aft er en hanc em en ts an d re du ct io ns , hi s t ot al off en se lev el was 2 1. Bas edon hi s 8 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts —2 of wh ic h wer e ad de d b ecau se he co m m it te d i ll eg al reen try whil e o n s up erv is edrel eas e—h is cri m in al hi st ory 4cat eg ory

was IV. Th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge was 5 7– 71 m on th s im pr is on m en t an d a$7 ,50 0– $7 5,0 00 fin e. The pre se nt en ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort n ot edth e fo ll owi ng : (1 ) si nc e MojicaLeg ui zam o’s re tu rnto th e Uni te d S ta te s i n e arl y 20 09 , he e arn edbe twee n $2 00 –$ 30 0 p er weekwork in g i n t he airco nd it io ni ng fie ld ; (2 ) whi le in Mex ic o fro m Jan ua ry 20 04 –e arl y

20 09 he work ed“ inth e fi el ds ” an d a s a t ax i driv er; (3) fro m 19 93 –1 99 7 h e worke d a t l oc al po ul try plant ; (4 ) he ha s n o a ss et s; (5) he ha s a fif th gra de educ at io n a ndno vo cat io na l educ at io n o r tr ai ni ng ; (6 ) he wil l l iv e wit h hi s fa m il y

in Mex ic o a fte r de po rta ti on fol lo win g h is rel eas e fro m pri so n; (7) he wou ldpro babl y

be un ab le to pay

a fi ne withi n the ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge ; an d (8 ) he m ig htbe ab le to pay so m ethi ng on a fi ne on anin st al lm en t b as is whi le se rv in g i n p ris on . The di stric t co urt h el d M oji ca-Le gu iz am o’s s up erv is edrel eas e rev oc at io n he ari ng at t he same tim e as th e se nt en ce h eari ng forhi s co nv ic ti onforil le ga l reen try. Abo utth e se nt en ce fo r il le ga l re en try, Mojic a-Leg ui zam o a rg ue d tha t h e sh ou ldno t h av e b een ass es se d 2 cri m in al hi st ory po in ts forco m

m it ti ng il le ga l reen try whil e o n s up erv is edrel eas e, whi ch in crea se d h is cri m in al hi st ory cat eg ory fro m III t o IV, b ecau se hi s s up erv is edrel eas e p eri odex pi redbe fo re co m m is si on of th e o ffen se . Abo utth e rev oc at io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e, Mo jica- Leg ui zam o 5arg ue d t ha t the in it ia l p et it io n was in va li d b ecau se hi s i m m ed ia te de po rta ti on m ean t t ha t h e co ul d n othave wil lfu ll y fai le d t o re po rt t o h is pro ba ti on off ic er i n pe rs on . He furt he r arg ue d t ha t the go ve rn m en t h adno t m etit s b ur de n o f pr ov in g th athe wil lfu ll y

fai le d t o p ay

th e fi ne an d t ha t t he am en de d p et it io n was in va li d be cau se th e d is tri ctco urt s ig ne d i t af te r hi s s up erv is edrel eas e te rm ha d e xp ire d. The go ve rn m en t re sp on de d t ha t (1 ) Mo jica- Leg ui zam o v io la te d h is supe rv is edrel eas e b ecau se he di d n otrep ort i n p ers onto hi s p ro ba ti on off ic er wit hi n 7 2 h ou rs of h is rel eas e; (2) th ere was su ffi ci en t ev id en ce i n t he PSR— an d in th e PSR

for hi s 1 99 8 d ru g t raff

ic ki ng co nv ic ti on —t o s up po rt h is ab il it y to pa y , 2 al th ou gh th e g ov ern m en t co nc ed edth atit“ di d n otha ve a lo t o f ev id en ce t o b rin g be fo re the co urt co nc ern in g t he do ll ar am ou nt s tha t h e m ay ha ve m ad e dur in g h is ti m e th athe was i n M ex ic o” ; an d (3 ) th e 2 00 6 i ni ti al warran t h ad“ to ll ed ” h is term of supe rv is edrel eas e. The di stric t co urt co nc lu de d t ha t t he 2 cr im in al hi st ory po in ts were p ro pe r an d t ha t i t h adau th or it y

to co ns id er the am en de d p et it io n b ecau se th e is su an ce o f th e in it ia l warran t h ad“ to ll ed ” Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s t erm

of s up erv is edrel eas e. The 1998 PSR noted that (1) the g overnme nt seized Mojica-L eguizamo’s car, his only 2 known asset; (2) as an illeg al alien Mojica -L eguizamo would have ac cess only to the low paying jobs offer ed by

the B OP; and (3) Mojica -L eguizamo reported a djusted g ross income of $2,877 in 1993 but the I RS had no recor d of any income for

1992 and 1994–1997. 6The co urt al so ad op te d the PSR as it s fi nd in gs .

The di stric t co urt s en te nc edMo jica- Leg ui zam o t o a70 -m on th pri so n t erm an d 3 y ears of s up erv is edrel eas e fo r th e il le ga l re en try con vi ct io n. Th e co urt al so or de redMo

jica- Leg ui zam o t o p ay

a be lo w-g ui de li ne s $ 2,0 00 fin e an d, as a co nd it io n o f hi s s up erv is edrel eas e, to pa y an y unpa idpo rti on of t he fin e fo ll owi ng hi s re le as e fro m

pri so n i n m in im

um $1 00 pe r m on th in st al lm en ts . Moji caLeg ui zam o o bjec te d t o the term of i m pr is on m en t as pro cedur al ly andsubs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le an d t o the fin e b ecau se he lac ke d a n abi li ty to p ay . Alth ou gh no t ad dr es si ng th e fi ne , th e co urt re sp on de d tha t t hi s was a “ di ffer en t ca se ” an d e ve n i f itha d ru le d fo r Mo

jica- Leg ui zam o o n h is 2-p oi ntcri m in al hi st ory ob jecti on it wou ld“ co ns id er an d fe el th ata 70 -m on th sen te nc e is reas on ab le ” b ecau se MojicaLeg ui zam o was de po rte d a fte r a dru g t raff ic ki ng co nv ic ti on an d the n i ll eg al ly reen te redth e Uni te d S ta te s t o a ctas a“ dr ug de al er” i ns te adof m ak in g a“ le ga l an d le gi ti m at e li vi ng to supp ort [h is ] fam il y .” The c ou rt a ls o re vo ke d M oji caLeg ui zam o’s s up erv is edrel eas e an d s en te nc edhi m to 4 m on th s cu st od y

an d 5 6 m on th s o f supe rv is edrel eas e, wit h the cu st od y an d s up erv is edrel eas e to run co nc urren tl y

with t he il le ga l re en try sen te nc e. Mo jica- Leg ui zam o app eal edhi s i ll eg al reen try sen te nc e an d h is supe rv is ed rel eas e rev oc at io n. Th e g ov ern m en t t he n a sk edth e d is tri ctco urt t o c ert ify tha t i t 7wou ldho ldfurth er p ro ceed in gs to m ak e fac tu al fin di ng s ab ou t t he supe rv is ed

rel eas e rev oc at io n. Th e d is tri ctco urt g ran te d t hi s re qu es t, an d we g ran te d t he go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n t o re m an d. At the he ari ng on rem an d t he di st ric t co urt ex pl ic it ly hel d t ha t i t h adrev ok ed Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s s up erv is edrel eas e b ecau se he ha d c omm it te d a ll th ree vi ol at io ns all eg edin th e am en de d p et it io n: il le ga l re en try whil e o n s up erv is ed rel eas e, wil lfu l fa il ur e to pa y th e fi ne , andfai lu re t o re po rt i n p ers on to hi s pr ob at io n o ffi cer wi th in72 ho ur s o f rel eas e. The d is tri ctco urt d idno t al te r th e rev oc at io n s en te nc e, an d M oji ca-Le gu iz am o t im el y fil edth es e ap pe al s. II. Mo jica- Leg ui zam o a rg ue s, an d t he go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , th atth e d is tri ct co urt l ack edjuri sd ic ti on to rev ok e h is supe rv is edrel eas e b as edon hi s co m m is si on of il le ga l re en try becaus e h is 5-year te rm of s up erv is edrel eas e ex pi redonJan ua ry 16 , 20 09 —ro ug hl y

two m on th s b efo re h e co m m it te d i ll eg al reen try. W e ag ree. See 1 8 U.S.C. § 36 24 (e) (“ The term of s up erv is edrel eas e co m m en ces onth e d ay th e p ers on is rel eas edfro m im pr is on m en t . . . .”). He als o a rg ue s, an d the go ve rn m en t ag ai n c on ced es , th atth e d is tri ctco urt erredin rev ok in g h is supe rv is ed rel eas e b ecau se (1) th e g ov ern m en t d idno t p ro ve th athe wil lfu ll y fai le d t o p ay

th e fin e an d (2 ) rep orti ng to hi s p ro ba ti on off ic er i n p ers on was i m

po ss ib le be cau se he 8ha d b een de po rte d i m m ed ia te ly after h is rel eas e fro m pri so n. We agre e. See Bea rd env. Geo rg ia , 46 1 U.S. 6 60 , 67 2– 73 , 10 3 S .Ct. 2 06 4, 2 07 3 (1 98 3) (ho ld in g th ata co urt m ay

rev ok e a d efen da nt ’s pro ba ti on forfai lu re t o p ay a fi ne on ly if th at fai lu re t o p ay

was wi ll fu l); Uni te d S ta te s v . Spe nc er, 6 40 F.3d51 3, 5 21 (2dCir . 20 11 ) (“ A rel eas ee ca nn otbe im pr is on edforfai li ng to co m pl y with an i m

po ss ib le co nd it io n . . . .”). III. Mo jica- Leg ui zam o a ls o app eal s t he 70 -m on thpri so n t erm im po se d b y th e co urt af te r he pl ead edgu il ty to the il le ga l re en try char ge in th e in di ct m en t. He co nt en ds th athi s p ris on term was p ro cedur al ly unr eas on ab le be cau se th e co urt erre d b y ad di ng 2 cr im in al hi st ory po in ts forhi s co m

m is si on of t he cri m e o f il le ga l reen try whil e o n s up erv is edrel eas e an d c on te nd s t ha t h is sen te nc e was subs ta nt iv el y

un reas on ab le be cau se th e fac ts do no t ju st ify an ab ov e-g ui de li ne s se nt en ce. W e rev ie w a se nt en ce fo r rea so nabl en es s, ap pl y in g a n abu se of d is cret io n st an da rd . Uni te d S ta te s v . Irey, 61 2 F .3d11 60 , 11 89 –9 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 01 0) (en ba nc ). Fir st , we rev ie w to en su re tha t t he di st ric t co urt co m m it te d n o s ig ni fic an t pr oc edur al erro r, su ch as i m pr op erl y cal cu la ti ng th e g ui de li ne s ra ng e. Uni te d St at es v. Sh aw, 56 0 F .3d12 30 , 12 37 (11 th Cir . 20 09 ). If th e se nt en ce i s 9pr oc edur al ly reaso nabl e, we de te rm in e whe th er i t i s s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e as

well . Uni te d S ta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 50 F.3d13 19 , 13 23 –2 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) . But whe n the di st ric t co urt s ta te s t ha t i t wo ul d h av e im po se d t he same sen te nc e reg ard le ss of t he all eg edgu id el in es ran ge cal cu la ti onerro r, we ne edon ly det erm in e whe th er the co urt’s al te rn at iv e rea so ni ng forim po si ng th atsen te nc e is reas on ab le . See Un it edSta te s v . Keen e, 47 0 F .3d13 47 , 13 49 –5 0 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) ; s ee al so Uni te d S ta te s v . W il li am s, 4 31 F.3d76 7, 7 75 –7 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 5) (Carne s, J ., co nc urrin g) . Here we n eedon ly det erm in e whe th er the co urt’s i m po si ti on of t he 70 -m on th pr is on term

was s ub st an ti ve ly reaso nabl e b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt s ta te d tha t i t wou ldha ve im

po se d t ha t p ris on term

reg ard le ss of wh ethe r itha d i m po se d t he 2 cri m in al hi st ory

po in ts at i ss ue . The co urt s ai d: Thi s i s a d iff

eren t ca se , anditis a cas e inwhi ch—ev enha d I rul edin y ou r fav oron th e—o n t he rev oc at io n i ss ue an d i t re du cedth e gu id el in e ran ge , I co ns id er an d fe el th ata 70 -m on th sen te nc e is reas on ab le . This is a cas e in whi ch th e d efen da ntwas c on vi ct edin a drug cas e an d was de po rte d. Th e d efen da ntth enreturns to th is co un try andis , infactde al in g d ru gs . . . . Thatfact or is anag gr av at in g ci rcu m st an ce, i n my

op in io n. Ourreas on ab le ne ss rev ie w is gu id edby the fact or s p ro vi de d b y Co ng res s i n 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Uni te d S ta te s v . Pug h, 5 15 F.3d11 79 , 11 88 –8 9 (1 1t h C ir.

1020 08 ). The d is tri ctco urt i s re qu ire d t o i m po se a se nt en ce tha t i s “ su ffi ci en t, b utno t gr eat er tha n n eces sa ry , to co m pl y with t he pu rp os es ” li st edin 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). 18 U.S.C. § 3 55 3( a). Tha t i nc lu de s t he ne edto refl ectth e se rio us ne ss of t he of fen se , pro m ot e res pe ctforth e la w, pro vi de jus t p un is hm en t o f th e o ffen se , det er cri m in al co nduc t, p ro te ctth e p ub li c fro m th e d efen dant ’s futur e cri m in al co nduc t, an d p ro vi de th e d efen da ntwith n eed ededuc at io na l o r vo cat io na l t rai ni ng or m ed ic al care . Id. § 35 53 (a)( 2) . Am on g o th er fa ct or s, the co urt m us t al so co ns id er th e n atur e an d c irc um st an ces of t he off en se , th e h is to ry

an d c ha ract eri st ic s o f th e de fen da nt , th e ap pl ic ab le gu id el in es ran ge , andth e n eedto av oi d u nwa rran te d se nt en ci ng di sp ari ti es . See i d. § 35 53 (a)( 1) , (4) , (6) . Butth e co urt n eedno t d is cu ss each fact or , Uni te d S ta te s v . Tall ey , 43 1 F .3d78 4, 7 86 (11 thCir . 20 05 ), an d t he bu rd enof e st ab li sh in g t ha t a s en te nc e is un reas on ab le li es with t he pa rty ch al le ng in g i t. Pu gh , 51 5 F .3d11 89 . Eve n a ss um in g t he di st ric t co urt m ad e a p ro cedur al erro r in cal cu la ti ng Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s cr im in al hi st ory cat eg ory , he h as no t d em on st rat edth atth e co urt’s re as on s fo r im

po si ng a 70 -m on th pri so n t erm are u nr eas on ab le . The go ve rn m en t ar gu edat t he sen te nc e h eari ng th atth is was M oji ca-Le gu iz am o’s se co ndfel on y

co nv ic ti on infed eral co urt fo r co nduc t re la te d t o d ru g t raff ic ki ng , an d i t as ke d the co urt t o i m po se a 71 -m on th sen te nc e. The d is tri ctco urt o bs erv ed

11th atin ad di ti on to Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s t wo fe de ral fel on y co nv ic ti on s, h e al so ha d co nv ic ti on s i n Geo rg iast at e co urt fo r drug tra ffi ck in g o ffen se s. Th e rec or d in di cat es th atth e co urt p ro pe rly con si de redth e § 35 53 (a) fa ct or s. Alt ho ug h a70 - m on th pri so n t erm

is gre at er than t he gu id el in es ran ge of 4 6– 57 m on th s tha t Mo jica- Leg ui zam o c on te nd s i s co rrec t, tha t p ris on term is well be lo w th e m ax im um st atut ory pri so n t erm

of 2 0 years. Se e 8 U.S.C. § 1 32 6( b) (2 ); Go nz al ez, 5 50 F.3dat 13 24 (ho ld in g t ha t a d efen da nt ’s sen te nc e was reas on ab le inpa rt b ecau se itwas well be lo w th e st atut ory

m ax im um ). Andth e d is tri ctco urt co m m en te d t ha t i t

“ se rio us ly con si de redgo in g abo ve th e g ui de li ne s” in th is cas e. The d is tri ctco urt’s im po si ti on of a70 -m on th pri so n t erm was re as on ab le . IV. Fin al ly Mojic a-Leg ui zam o a rg ue s, an d the go ve rn m en t co nc ed es , th atth e reco rddo es no t re fle cta reas on edba si s fo r th e im po si ti on of a$2 ,00 0 fi ne . W e ag ree. Th e d is tri ctco urt ad op te d t he PSR as it s fi nd in gs , andne it he r pa rty pr es en te d o th er ev id en ce o f Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s ab il it y

to pa y a fi ne . And al th ou gh th e d is tri ctco urt i m po se d abe lo w-g ui de li ne s fi ne , itdi d n otres po ndto Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s o bjec ti on to th atfin e. See Un it edSta te s v . Gon zal ez, 5 41 F.3 d 1 25 0, 1 25 6 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 8) (va cat in g afin e b ecau se th e rec or d d idno t re fle ct a rea so ne d b as is forit s i m po si ti on wher e th e PSR

“pr ov id eda de ta il edfin an ci al 12an al y si s o f th e d efen da nt ’s ass et s an d c on cl ud edth athe lac k[ ed ] th e ab il it y to pa y a fin e in ad di ti on to m an da to ry res ti tu ti on ” an d t he di st ric t co urt d idno t p ro vi de an ex pl an at io n o f th e fi ne aft er the de fen da ntob jecte d t o i ts im

po si ti on ). V. Fo r th e fo reg oi ng reas on s we re ve rs e th e d is tri ctco urt’s o rd er re vo ki ng Mo jica- Leg ui zam o’s s up erv is edrel eas e, affi rm th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m

po si ti on of a 70 -m on th pri so n t erm , andva cat e th e d is tri ctco urt’s i m po si ti on of a$2 ,00 0 fi ne an d re m an d the cas e fo r th e li m it edpu rp os e o f de te rm in in g wh ethe r th ere i s a reas on edba si s fo r th e im po si ti on of afin e. REVERSED I N PART. A FFIRMED I N PART. VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART.

13