2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 10-27-2009 

# U SA v . J o se R ico -H e rn ande z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-4129

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . J os e R ic o -H e rn andez " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 383. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/383NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

___________ N o. 08- 4129

___________ UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v. J OSE G UA DA LUPE RI CO - HER NA ND EZ, A p p e llan t.

___________ O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C r i m i nal N o. 2- 07- cr - 00744- 1) D i s t r i ctJ udge: T he H onor abl e B er l e M . Schi l l er

___________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

O ct ober1, 2009 B E F O R E : M cK E E , C H A G A R E S , and N Y G A A R D , C i rcui tJudg es.

( Fi l ed: O ct ober27, 2009)

___________ OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

___________2

N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJ udge. Ap p e l l a n tJ o s e Ri c o - He r n a n d e z , a n a g g r a v a t e d f e l o n , p l e a d e d g u i l t yt o th e c r i me o f ille g a lly re -e n te ri n g th e U n ite d S ta te s a f te r d e p o rt a tio n , a v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1326( a) , ( b) ( 2) . H e w as s ent ence d t o 72- m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , a t erm of s upervi s ed r el eas e and, r el evantt o t hi s appea l , fi ned $100, 000. 00. H e appe al s onl ythe i m pos i t i on of th e f in e , arg u in g th a t ite x c e e d s th e m a x im u m a m o u n t au th o riz e d b ysta tu te a n d th a t itis v i o l a t i v e o f

t h e Ei g h t h Ame n d me n t ’ s p r o h i b i t i o n a g a i n s te x c e s s i v e f i n e s . W e wi l l a f

f i r m. Ap p e l l a n ti s a c i t i z e n o f M e x i c o a n d h a d e n t e r e d th e Un i t e d S t a t e s i l l e g a l l y . He w as convi ct ed of a ggr avat ed as s aul ti n 2005 i n B ucks C ount y , Penns y l vani a and w hi l e on p a r o l e a r r e s t e d b ya g e n t s o f t h e I mm i g r a t i o n a n d Cu s t o ms E n f o r c e me n ta g e n c y( I CE ) . He w a s d e p o rte d in N o v e m b e r o f 2 0 0 6 . In O c to b e r o f

2 0 0 7 , A p p e llan t w a s a rre ste d in B ens al em, Penns y l vani a. A ppel l antw as s ubs equent l yi ndi ct ed on one c ountof i l l egal r eentr ybyan aggr avat ed fe l on aft erdepor t at i on. H e pl eade d gui l t yt o t hi s offe ns e. D uri ng his sent encing h eari ng , the G ov ernm ent ur ged the D i stri ctC ou rtt o im po se a s ent ence t hatw oul d have a det err enteff ect . T he G overnm entpoi nt ed outthatw hen f i r s td e p o r t e d , Ap p e l l a n tt o l d I CE Ag e n t s th a th e “ h a d n o i n t e n t i o n o f a b i d i n g b yth e l a ws of thi s countr ybeca us e he, i n fac t. . . w oul d onl ygetpr os ecut ed i f he gotcaught . ” O pt i ng fora s ent ence att he l ow end of the G ui del i ne r ange, the D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d A ppel l antt o 72- m ont hs i m pr i s onm ent , butl evi ed a f i ne of $100, 000. 00 agai ns tthe A p p e llan t.3

O n ap p ea l, R ico-H ern an d ez ch all en g es o n lythe im p o sit ion o f th e f ine. H o w ev er, he ar gues nei t hert he r eas onabl enes s of hi s fi ne northathe l acks the abi l i t yt o paythe fi ne. I ns t ead Ri ck- H ernandez s ubm i t s thatthe fi ne w as i l l egal beca us e i texce eds the sta tu to rym a x im u m p e rm itt e d b yth e a p p lica b le s tatu te. H e m a in tain s th a t h is f in e sh o u ld be s etbyw hi cheve rs t at e cr i m i nal code he vi ol at ed w hen he c om m i t t ed the aggr avat ed fel onyi n 2005. T hi s i s i ncorr ectas a mat t erof l aw . H e pl eade d gui l t yt o a vi ol at i on of 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) , w hi ch pr ovi des cr i m i nal penal t i es forthe “r e- entr yof ce r t ai n r emoved al i ens . ” The st atut e r es erves t he har s hes tpenal t i es forthos e i l l egal r e- entr ant s w ho have b e e n p re v io u s ly co n v ic te d o f a n a g g ra v a te d f

e lo n y . U ni t ed Stat es v. Sot o- O r nelas , 312 F. 3d 1167, 1170 ( 10t h C i r . 2002) ci t i ng 8 U . S. C . § 1326( b) ( 2) . Sect i on 1326( b) pr ovi des fo r th e im p o sit ion o f a fin e, bu t do es n o t spe cifyan am o u n t. T h ere fo re, th e D istri ct C o u rt co rrectl yturn ed to 1 8 U . S . C . § 3 5 7 1 w h ich s ets th e m ax im u m am o u n t of a f ine f o r a fel onyat$250, 000. 00. B eca us e R i co- H ernandez ’ fi ne of $100, 000. 00 does notexce ed th e sta tu to rym a x im u m se t f o rth in 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 5 7 1 (b )(3 ), itw a s n o t lev ied c o n tra ryto l a w. R i co- H ernandez al s o m ai nt ai ns thatthe fi ne vi ol at es the Exces s i ve Fi nes C l aus e of t he Ei ght h A m endmentt o t he C ons t i tut i on. H e fa i l ed t o r ai s e thi s ar gum entbefor e the D is tr ic t C o u rt , s o w e re v ie w f o r p la in e rr o r. S e e U

n itedS ta tes v . C a m

p b e ll , 295 F. 3d 398, 404 ( 3d C i r . 2002) . T he Ei ght h A m endment ’ s E xces s i ve Fi nes C l aus e l i m i t s the G overnm ent ' s pow ert o extr actpaym ent s , w hetheri n cas h ori n ki nd, as puni s hm entfor4

s o m e o f f e n s e . See Al exande rv. U ni t ed Stat es , 509 U . S. 544, 558- 59 ( 1993) ( i nt ernal q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). A f in e v io late s th e E x c e ss iv e F in e s C lau se w h e n it i s g ro ss ly d is p ro p o rt io n a l to th e g ra v ity o f th e o f f e n s e . U ni t ed Stat es v. B aj akaj i an , 524 U . S. 321, 3 3 4 (1 9 9 8 ). A s w e have det erm i ned, t he maxi m um fi ne fori l l egal r e- entr yi nt o t he U ni t ed St at es byan aggr avat ed fe l on i s $250, 000. 00. A t$100, 000, R i co- H ernandez ’ fi ne i s not d is p ro p o rt io n a te to th e s ta tu to ry m a x im u m f in e o f $ 2 5 0 ,0 0 0 p e r o f

f e n s e . See U

ni t ed Stat es v. N

ew s om e, 322 F. 3d 328, 342 ( 4th C i r . 2003) ( fi ndi ng no E i ght h A m endment v io latio n f

o r re stitu tio n o rd e r th a t w a s n o t d isp ro p o rtio n a te e ith e r to th e a c tu a l lo ss o r to t he s t atut or i l yauthor i zed f i ne) . W e fi nd no pl ai n err orand w i l l aff i r m the i m pos i t i on of th e f in e b yth e D is tr ic t C o u rt .