[PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 96-5348 Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 95-787-CR-DLG UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus CHARLES FOX, JOHN FRANKLIN, Defendants-Appellants.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District

_________________________ (May 13, 1998) Before EDMONDSON and BARKETT, Circuit Judge s, and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM: Charles Fox and John Franklin appeal from th eir convictions and sentences for conspiracy to commit bank robbery and carrying or using a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence. The only issue raised by Fox on appeal is whether th e trial court erred in failing to grant his motion to suppress his pre-trial identification by a bank teller on the grounds that the photographic line-up used was unduly suggestive. Franklin raises thr ee claims on appeal, arguing that his conviction and sentence should be reversed because: (1) his post- arrest confession should not have been admitted because the government intentionally failed to preserve that portion of his statement which was-2- exculpatory; (2) the government failed to presen t sufficient evidence to support a finding that the deposits of the Credit Union Service Center, a vi ctim institution, was federally insured, a necessary element of the bank robbery offense; and (3) the trial court erred in ordering him to pay restitution. Upon review of the relevant porti ons of the record and the briefs of the parties, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that, under the circumstances, the photographic array was not suggestive and did not create a risk of misidentification. Nor did the district court abuse its discretion in denying Franklin’s motion to exclude his confession. We also conclude that the government presented sufficient evidence of the Credit Union Service Center’s federal insurance. Accordingly, we AFFI RM both Fox’s and Franklin’s convictions. However, we REVERSE the portion of the trial c ourt’s sentence that orders Franklin to make restitution. The pre-sentence investigation report (“ PSR”) noted that Franklin had not finished high school, had only a limited ability to make a living, ha d spent eleven years in state prison from 1978 to 1989, and had no significant assets, and concluded that he was unable to pay a fine. The Government argues that Franklin failed to make a timely objection regarding the restitution issue because defense counsel did not ra ise that issue until after the judge announced the sentence. The Government’s argument is plainl y without merit. In United States v. Jones , 899 F.2d 1097, 1102 (11th Cir. 1990), overruled on other gr ounds, 984 F.2d 1136 (11th Cir. 1993) (en banc), exercising our supervisory power over the district courts, we instructed the courts “to elicit fully articulated objections, following imposition of sentence , to the court’s ultimate findings of fact and conclusions of law.” We specifically noted th at the probation officer’s addendum to the PSR, incorporating the parties’ initial objections to the officer’s findings, “cannot serve . . . to limit the objections cognizable on appeal, because it does not take into account what transpires at the-3- sentencing hearing itself.” Id. After imposing sentence, the district court inquired whether Franklin objected “to the Court’s findings of fact or the manner in which sentence was pronounced.” Franklin’s attorney immediately gave the following response: Your Honor, the only thing is that I don’t think Mr. Franklin has any realistic expectation of being able to pay restitution in [the amount ordered]. The [PSR] indicates he doesn’t have even the assets to pay a fine at this time. It’s unlikely in 42 years he’ll have any more significant assets. Clearly, Franklin’s objection to the court’s restitution order was not waived. As to the merits of Franklin’s claim, we find th at the district court failed to comply with the requirements of the Victim and Witness Prot ection Act of 1982 (“VWPA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663-64. The VWPA provides that the sentencing court “ shall consider . . . the financial resources of the defendant, the financial needs and earning ability of the defendant and the defendant’s dependents, and such other factors as the court deems appr opriate” before ordering restitution. 18 U.S.C. § 3664(a) (emphasis supplied). The governmentsuggests that United States v. Davis , 117 F.3d 459, 463 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 355, and 118 S. Ct. 395 (1997), precludes relief because Franklin failed to meet his burden of demonstr ating his financial resources by a preponderance of the evidence. However, as we stated in United States v. Twitty , 107 F.3d 1482, 1493 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 253 (1997), on which Davis relies: district courts are not obligated to make explicit factual findings of a defendant's ability to pay restitutionif the record provides an adequate basis for review. [Citations omitted.] Conversely, “we will not uphold the district court's exercise of discretion if the record is devoid of an y evidence that the defendant is able to satisfy the restitution order.” United States v. Remillong , 55 F.3d 572, 574-75 (11th Cir.1995) (quoting United States v. Patty , 992 F.2d 1045, 1052 (10th Cir.1993)). [Footnote omitted.] “If the reco rd is insufficient, reasons must be assigned.” Hairston , 888 F.2d at 1353 (quoting Un ited States v. Patterson , 837 F.2d 182, 183-84 (5th Cir.1988)). (emphasis supplied).-4- In both Davis and Twitty , the PSR contained sufficient information to clearly support the district court’s conclusion that the defendants in those cases had the ability to pay restitution. In this case, the converse is true. The PSR makes clear th at Franklin does not have the financial ability to make restitution. The government’s argument that the fact that some of the proceeds of the robbery were not recovered is not an ade quate basis, in and of itself, fo r a finding that a defendant had the financial ability to pay restitution. See Remillong , 55 F.3d at 575-76.
AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.