## United States Court of App eals

F O R T H E E I G H T H C I R C U I T

__ __ __ __ __ _

No. 0 9- 30 50

__ __ __ __ __ _

Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca, *

* App el le e, *

* App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s

v. * Dis tri ct Co ur t fo r th e

* W es te rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s. Jo se Lui s M art in ez, *

* [UNPUBLISHED] App el la nt

. *

__ __ __ __ __ _

Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 15 , 20 10
Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

14 , 20 11

__ __ __ __ __ _

Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , MELLOY and GRUENDER, Circu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ _

PER CURI AM.

Pu rs ua nt to a pl ea ag reem en t, Jo se Lui s Mar ti ne z pl ed gu il ty to kn owi ng ly

p o s s e ss in g wit h in te nt to di st rib ut e a m ix tu re or su bs ta nc e co nt ai ni ng a de te c t a b l e

am ou nt of m et ha m

ph et am in e, in vi ol at io n of 21 U.S.C. § 84 1( a)(1 ) an d 18 U.S.C. § 2.

The Uni te d St at es Pro ba ti on Offi ce pr ep ared a pr es en te nc e in ve st ig at io n rep or t (PSR )

cal cu la ti ng a Uni te d St at es Sen te nc in g Gui de li ne s (U.S.S.G. or Gui de li ne s) ran ge of

70 to 87 m on th s i m

pr is on m en t, t wo t o t hr ee years s up erv is ed rel eas e, an d a $1 2,5 00to $1 ,00 0,0 00 fin e. The di st ric t co ur t rev ie wed th e PSR, read th e pa rti es ’ se nt en ci ng 1

mem or an da

, he ard th e te st im on y of fiv e wit ne ss es , li st en ed to th e arg um en ts o f

co un se l an d co ns id ered Mar ti ne z’s a l l o c u t i o n. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d th e

go ve rn m en t’s m ot io n fo r a do wnwar d de pa rtu re, pu rs ua nt to U.S.S.G. § 5K1 .1, ba se d

on Mar ti ne z’s su bs ta nt ia l as si st an ce to au th or it ie s, red uc in g Mar ti ne z’s ad vi so ry
Gui de li ne s ran ge to 57 to 71 m on th s im pr is on m en t, two to th ree y ears su pe rv is ed

rel eas e, an d a $1 0,0 00 to $1 ,00 0,0 00 fin e. The co ur t se nt en ced Mar ti ne z to 66 m on th s

im pr is on m en t an d th ree y ears su pe rv is ed rel eas e, an d im po se d a fin e of $5 0,0 00

, wit h

no in te res t ac cru in g. Th e fi ne co ul d b e pa id im m ed ia te ly o r up on a sc he du le of $2 5

pe r qu art er whi le Mar ti ne z is im pr is on ed

, an d up o n r e l e a se , $2 00 m on th ly, or te n

pe rcen t o f hi s m on th ly hou se ho ld in co m e, whi ch ev er i s g reat er.

Mar ti ne z ap pe al s th e am ou nt of hi s fin e. Bec au se Mar ti ne z di d no t ob ject to th e

fin e at se nt en ci ng , we rev ie w fo r pl ai n erro r. See Uni te d St at es v. Vau gh n, 51 9 F.3 d

80 2, 80 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (“ If a de fen da nt fai ls to ob ject ti m el y to a pr oc ed ur al

se nt e n c i n g erro r, th e erro r is fo rfei te d an d m ay on ly be rev ie wed fo r pl ai n erro r.”).

“ Und er pl ai n erro r rev ie w, [ Mar ti ne z] m us t sh ow: (1 ) a n e r r o r ; (2 ) th at is pl ai n; an d
(3 ) th at affe ct s su bs ta nt ia l rig ht s.” Uni te d St at es v. Als to n, 62 6 F.3 d 39 7, 40 5 (8 th Ci r.

20 10 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s om it te d)

. W e wil l no t co rrec t a pl ai n erro r “ un le ss it

se rio us ly affe ct s th e fai rn es s, in te gr it y , or pu bl ic rep ut at io n of jud ic ia l pr oc eed in gs .”

Uni te d St at es v. W il li am s, 62 4 F.3 d 88 9, 89 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 ). It is Mar ti ne z’s bu rd en

to sh ow “ th ere is a rea so na bl e p ro ba bi li ty he wou ld ha ve rece iv ed a li gh te r se nt en ce
bu t fo r t h e e r r o r

. ” Uni te d St at es v. Brewe r, 62 4 F.3 d 90 0, 90 9 n.6 (8 th Ci r. 20 10 )
(q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . Bai n, 5 86 F.3d 63 4, 6 40 (8t h C ir. 2 00 9) ).

Mar ti ne z can no t carr y hi s bu rd en

. H e co nt en ds (1 ) th e fin e is un reas on ab le

be cau se th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er Mar ti ne z’s ab il it y to pa y th e fin e an d th e

The Hon or ab le Ji m

m Larry Hen dr en , Ch ie f Judge, U nit ed St at es D is tri ct Co ur t 1

fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of Ark an sa s.

-2

-fin an ci al im

pa ct th e fin e pl aces on Mar ti ne z an d hi s de pe nd an ts

, an d (2 ) th ere is “ no

ev id en ce tha t th e di st ric t cou rt co ns id ered th e pe rti ne nt fact or s pri or to im po si ng th e

fin e.” Mar ti ne z cal cu la te s th at

, if he pa id th e m in im um m on th ly am ou nt pe rm it te d

un de r th e di st ric t co ur t’s or de r, he wou ld ha ve pa id le ss th an ha lf th e fin e by th e ti m e

hi s su pe rv is ed rel eas e is te rm in at ed

. He al so sp ecu la te s, ba se d on hi s wife ’s te st im on y
th at sh e is ha vi ng tro ub le m ak in g e nd s m eet no w, h is pa y m en t of an y am ou nt la rg er

th an th e $1 0,0 00 m in im

um wou ld cau se hi s fam il y to su ffer se ve re ha rd sh ip

. Exc ep t

fo r th e am ou nt of th e fin e it se lf, Mar ti ne z po in ts to no ev id en ce th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d

to co ns id er ei th er hi s ab il it y to pa y or th e fin e’s im pa ct on hi s fa mi l y. Th e di st ric t

co ur t co ns id ered th at Mar ti ne z ha s ta le nt

, ha vi ng b e en a di sc jock ey an d a sa le s

rep res en ta ti ve , an d al so in vo lv ed in hi s own le gi ti m at e bu si ne ss

. Th e co ur t fo un d

Mar ti ne z ha s “ way s in whi ch to mak e m on ey wit ho ut de al in g dr ug s.” Fu rth erm or e,

t h e PSR in di cat es Mar ti ne z po ss es se s si gn ifi can t as se ts

, su ch as ho m e eq ui ty an d a

ren ta l pr op ert y , whi ch m ig ht be li qu id at ed ov er ti m e to pa y al l or a po rti on of th e fin e.
The re is no ba si s to co nc lu de th e di st ric t co ur t fai le d to co ns id er Mar ti ne z’s ab il it y to

pa y or t he fin e’s im

pa ct on hi s fa m il y

.

Mar ti ne z al so arg ue s th e di st ric t co u r t p la in ly erre d be cau se th e se nt en ci ng

tra ns cri pt do es no t in di cat e th e di st ric t c ou rt co ns id ered th e U.S.S.G. § 5E1 .2(d )

f a c t o r s in de te rm in in g th e am ou nt of th e fin e. Acco rd in g to Mar ti ne z, “ th e on l y

co ns id erat io n th at th e jud ge us ed reg ard in g th e fin e was ” th e co ur t’s ob se rv at io n th at

Mar ti ne z’s dr ug di st rib ut io n was “ a bu si ne ss an d it was ab ou t m on ey .” Thi s arg um en t

ha s no m eri t. As we ob se rv ed in Als to n, 62 6 F.3 d at 40 5, th e di st ric t co ur t “ refe ren ced
[Ma rti ne z’s] ab il it y to wor k whi le in pr is on , an d th e co ur t est ab li sh ed an in st al lm en t

sc he du le fo r pa y

m en t of th e fin e.” The co ur t al so di sc us se d Mar ti ne z’s em pl oym en t

hi st or y , a n d th e PSR sh ows Mar ti ne z own s si gn ifi can t as se ts

. See Uni te d St at es v.

Herro n, 53 9 F.3 d 88 1, 88 8- 89 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (fi nd in g no p l a i n e r r o r whe re

in fo rm at io n in th e PSR, se nt en ci ng m em or an da an d co un se ls ’ arg um en ts “ pr ov id e[d ]

su ffi ci en t in fo rm at io n to es ta b l i s h t ha t th e fact or s were co ns id ered an d th at [th e
de fen da nt ] fai le d to es ta bl is h th at he co ul d no t pa y or was no t li ke ly to be ab le to pa y

-3

-a fin e”). The di st ric t co ur t di d no t pl ai nl y err in de te rm in in g th e am ou nt of Mar ti ne z’s

fin e.

Acco rd in gl y , we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-4

-